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, 10, 18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (“Dong”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0020744) in view of Wei et al. (“Wei”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0069628).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a photo detector or an image sensor, and a transceiver (fig. 3 UE and paragraphs 0052 and 0061, bidirectional communication reads on UE transceiver, and the VLC reception by the UE inherently involves a photo detector of some kind); a memory and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (fig. 12 and paragraphs 0143-1049 in light of paragraph 0083), configured to: receive, from a base station via the photo detector or the image sensor, a downlink visible light communication (VLC) transmission (fig. 3 Downlink VLC link and paragraph 0061); receive, from the base station via the transceiver, a downlink radio frequency (RF)-based communication (RFC) transmission (fig. 3, Bidirectional Wi-Fi link and paragraph 0061), and transmit, to the base station via the transceiver and via an uplink RF transmission based at least in part on a lack of support for an uplink VLC transmission at the UE (paragraph 0061 in light of 0006), acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback associated with one or more of the downlink VLC transmission or the downlink RFC transmission (paragraph 0070 in light of paragraph 0083). Dong does not disclose that a frame structure associated with the downlink VLC transmission is asynchronous with a frame structure associated with the downlink RFC transmission. However, Dong discloses the VLC downlink and Wi-Fi downlink as options (fig. 3 and paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use asynchronous frames from the respective VLC and Wi-Fi transmissions, since the protocols are not dependent on each other, are using different transmission media and different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and synchronizing them would require unnecessary coordination of the two protocols.
Also, Dong discloses the RF link as LTE (4G) (paragraph 0076), but not as NR (5G). However, NR is the progression of LTE to the next generation, and applicable for the dual VLC and RF communication environment, as taught by Wei (fig. 1 and paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NR for the RF protocol, since it is the next generation after the disclosed LTE protocol of Dong.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dong and Wei discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured for an NR-VLC carrier aggregation or an NR-VLC dual connectivity (Dong: fig. 3, dual RF and VLC connectivity, as applicable for the combination in light of Wei).
Regarding claim 10, Dong discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising: a light emitting diode or a laser diode (fig. 3 and paragraphs 0052 and 0061); a transceiver (fig. 3 VLC APn and paragraph 0061), a memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory (fig. 12 and paragraphs 0143-1049 in light of paragraph 0083) configured to: transmit, to a user equipment (UE) via the light emitting diode or the laser diode, a downlink visible light communication (VLC) transmission (fig. 3 Downlink VLC link and paragraph 0061); transmit, to the UE via the transceiver, a downlink radio frequency (RF)-based communication (RFC) transmission (fig. 3, Bidirectional Wi-Fi link and paragraph 0061); and receive, from the UE via the transceiver and via an uplink RF transmission based at least in part on a lack of support for an uplink VLC transmission at the UE (paragraph 0061 in light of 0006), acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback associated with one or more of the downlink VLC transmission or the downlink RFC transmission (paragraph 0070 in light of paragraph 0083). Dong does not disclose that a frame structure associated with the downlink VLC transmission is asynchronous with a frame structure associated with the downlink RFC transmission. However, Dong discloses the VLC downlink and Wi-Fi downlink as options (fig. 3 and paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use asynchronous frames from the respective VLC and Wi-Fi transmissions, since the protocols are not dependent on each other, are using different transmission media and different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and synchronizing them would require unnecessary coordination of the two protocols.
Also, Dong discloses the RF link as LTE (4G) (paragraph 0076), but not as NR (5G). However, NR is the progression of LTE to the next generation, and applicable for the dual VLC and RF communication environment, as taught by Wei (fig. 1 and paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NR for the RF protocol, since it is the next generation after the disclosed LTE protocol of Dong.
Regarding claim 18, Dong discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a base station, a downlink visible light communication (VLC) transmission (fig. 3 Downlink VLC link and paragraphs 0052 and 0061); receiving, from the base station, a downlink radio frequency (RF)-based communication (RFC) transmission, wherein a frame structure associated with the downlink VLC transmission is asynchronous with a frame structure associated with the downlink NR RFC transmission (fig. 3, Bidirectional Wi-Fi link and paragraph 0061); and transmitting, to the base station via an uplink RF transmission based at least in part on a lack of support for an uplink VLC transmission at the UE (paragraph 0061 in light of 0006), acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback associated with one or more of the downlink VLC transmission or the downlink RFC transmission (paragraph 0070 in light of paragraph 0083). Dong does not disclose that a frame structure associated with the downlink VLC transmission is asynchronous with a frame structure associated with the downlink RFC transmission. However, Dong discloses the VLC downlink and Wi-Fi downlink as options (fig. 3 and paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use asynchronous frames from the respective VLC and Wi-Fi transmissions, since the protocols are not dependent on each other, are using different transmission media and different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and synchronizing them would require unnecessary coordination of the two protocols.
Also, Dong discloses the RF link as LTE (4G) (paragraph 0076), but not as NR (5G). However, NR is the progression of LTE to the next generation, and applicable for the dual VLC and RF communication environment, as taught by Wei (fig. 1 and paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NR for the RF protocol, since it is the next generation after the disclosed LTE protocol of Dong.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Dong and Wei discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the UE is configured for an NR-VLC carrier aggregation or an NR-VLC dual connectivity (Dong: fig. 3, dual RF and VLC connectivity, as applicable for the combination in light of Wei).
Regarding claim 25, Dong discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink visible light communication (VLC) transmission; transmitting, to the UE, a downlink radio frequency (RF)- based communication (RFC) transmission (fig. 3, Bidirectional Wi-Fi link and paragraph 0061), and receiving, from the UE via an uplink RF transmission based at least in part on a lack of support for an uplink VLC transmission at the UE (paragraph 0061 in light of 0006), acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback associated with one or more of the downlink VLC transmission or the downlink RFC transmission (paragraph 0070 in light of paragraph 0083). Dong does not disclose that a frame structure associated with the downlink VLC transmission is asynchronous with a frame structure associated with the downlink RFC transmission. However, Dong discloses the VLC downlink and Wi-Fi downlink as options (fig. 3 and paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use asynchronous frames from the respective VLC and Wi-Fi transmissions, since the protocols are not dependent on each other, are using different transmission media and different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and synchronizing them would require unnecessary coordination of the two protocols.
Also, Dong discloses the RF link as LTE (4G) (paragraph 0076), but not as NR (5G). However, NR is the progression of LTE to the next generation, and applicable for the dual VLC and RF communication environment, as taught by Wei (fig. 1 and paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NR for the RF protocol, since it is the next generation after the disclosed LTE protocol of Dong.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-17, 19-23 and 26-30 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:
US Patent Application Publication Nos. 2015/0223277, 2014/0226977, 2014/0153923, 2014/0126911.
M. Goldwater et al., "An 802.11 Compatible Asymmetric Hybrid Visible-Light and Radio-Frequency Communications System," 2020 IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, London, UK, 2020, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/PIMRC48278.2020.9217371.
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