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 .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wageningen et al (US Pub 20240305384) in view of Taguchi et al (US Pub 20180145758).
Regarding Claim 1. Van Wageningen discloses a reception control device comprising:
a first processing circuit that includes a switching circuit including a switch connected to each of a plurality of light receiving elements, a selection switch arranged for each group to which the plurality of light receiving elements are distributed, and a changeover switch that switches an output destination of the selection switch for each group, and an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces connected to an output of the switching circuit (Fig 8, where a receiver (300) comprises a first processing circuit (e.g. 310a, 310b, 310c, 330) that includes a switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313) which includes a switch connected to each of a plurality of light receiving elements (e.g. 311), a selection switch (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c) arranged for each group to which the plurality of light receiving elements (e.g. 311) are distributed, and a changeover switch (e.g. 313) that switches an output destination of the selection switch (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c) for each group, and an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) connected to an output of the switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313));
a selector that is connected to an output of the first processing circuit (Fig 8, where the receiver (300) comprises a selector (e.g. 320) (para [123]) that is connected to an output of the first processing circuit (e.g. 310a, 310b, 310c, 330));
at least one second processing circuit that is arranged downstream of the selector and decodes a signal allocated via the selector (Fig 8, where the receiver (300) comprises a second processing circuit (e.g. at output 322 of selector 320) arranged downstream of the selector (e.g. 320) and receives a signal allocated via the selector (e.g. 320) and where it is known in the art that the second processing circuit (e.g. at output 322 of selector 320) in addition to receiving the signal also decodes the signal in order to recover transmitted data (see for example Moro (US Pub 20200169323) Fig 3C, decoder 380)); and
a control circuit comprising a first memory storing instructions, and a first processor connected to the first memory and configured to execute the instructions to
control the switching circuit to allocate a signal from each of the plurality of light receiving elements to any one of the plurality of interfaces (Fig 8, where the receiver (300) comprises a control circuit (e.g. 315a, 315b, 315c, 314) configured to control the switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313) to allocate a signal from each of the plurality of light receiving elements (e.g. 311) to any one of the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b)), and
control the selector to allocate the signal from the interface circuit to any one of the second processing circuits (Fig 8, where the control circuit (e.g. 315a, 315b, 315c, 314) is configured to control the selector (e.g. 320) to allocate the signal from the interface circuit to the second processing circuit (e.g. at output 322 of selector 320)).
Van Wageningen fails to explicitly disclose the interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers.
However, Taguchi discloses
an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers (Fig 2, where an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) as described in Van Wageningen, with the teachings of the plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) as described in Taguchi. The motivation being is that as shown a plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) can comprise a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) as described in Van Wageningen and have the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) comprise a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) with a known technique of a known plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) for the purpose of optimally amplifying reception signals and improving signal quality and where such technique optimally generates signals with desired target levels and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical receivers, selectors,…) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) into another similar plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9. Van Wageningen discloses a reception control method comprising by a control circuit:
controlling a first processing circuit including a switching circuit that includes a first switch circuit including a switch connected to each of a plurality of light receiving elements and a second switch circuit switching an output destination of each group in which some of a plurality of the switches included in the first switch circuit are integrated, and an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces connected to an output of the switching circuit, to allocate a signal from each of the plurality of light receiving elements to any one of the plurality of interfaces connected to the output of the switching circuit (Fig 8, where a receiver (300) controls a first processing circuit (e.g. 310a, 310b, 310c, 330) including a switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313) which includes a first switch circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c) including a switch connected to each of a plurality of light receiving elements (e.g. 311) and a second switch circuit (e.g. 313) switching an output destination of each group in which some of a plurality of the switches included in the first switch circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c) are integrated, and an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) connected to an output of the switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313), to allocate a signal from each of the plurality of light receiving elements (e.g. 311) to any one of the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) connected to the output of the switching circuit (e.g. 313a, 313b, 313c, 313)); and
controlling a selector connected to outputs of the plurality of interfaces to allocate the signal from the interface circuit to any one of a plurality of second processing circuits that decode the signal output from the first processing circuit (Fig 8, where the receiver (300) controls a selector (e.g. 320) (para [123]) connected to outputs of the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) to allocate the signal from the interface circuit to one of a plurality of second processing circuits (e.g. at output 322 of selector 320) that receive the signal output from the first processing circuit (e.g. 310a, 310b, 310c, 330) and where it is known in the art that the one second processing circuit (e.g. at output 322 of selector 320) in addition to receiving the signal also decodes the signal in order to recover transmitted data (see for example Moro (US Pub 20200169323) Fig 3C, decoder 380)).
Van Wageningen fails to explicitly disclose the interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers.
However, Taguchi discloses
an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers (Fig 2, where an interface circuit including a plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) comprises an amplifier circuit including a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) as described in Van Wageningen, with the teachings of the plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) as described in Taguchi. The motivation being is that as shown a plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) can comprise a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) as described in Van Wageningen and have the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) comprise a plurality of amplifiers (e.g. LA) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b) with a known technique of a known plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) for the purpose of optimally amplifying reception signals and improving signal quality and where such technique optimally generates signals with desired target levels and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical receivers, selectors,…) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known plurality of interfaces (e.g. between an RX section and a selector) into another similar plurality of interfaces (e.g. 321a, 321b), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10. Claim 10 is similar to claim 9, therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wageningen et al (US Pub 20240305384) in view of Taguchi et al (US Pub 20180145758) in further view of Gurovich et al (US Pub 20120076509).
Regarding Claim 6. Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi also discloses a light reception device comprising: the reception control device (Van Wageningen Fig 8, where a light reception device comprising the receiver (300)).
Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi fails to explicitly disclose a light receiving element array including a plurality of light receiving elements; and a light collector that collects a spatial optical signal toward at least one of the light receiving elements included in the light receiving element array.
However, Gurovich discloses
a light receiving element array including a plurality of light receiving elements, and a light collector that collects a spatial optical signal toward at least one of the light receiving elements included in the light receiving element array (Fig 1, where a receiver (100) comprises a light receiving element array (14) that includes a plurality of light receiving elements and a light collector (12) that collects a spatial optical signal toward at least one of the light receiving elements included in the light receiving element array (14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver (300) as described in Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi, with the teachings of the receiver (100) as described in Gurovich. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver (100) can comprise a light receiving element array (14) and a light collector (12) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the receiver (300) as described in Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and have the receiver (300) comprise a light receiving element array (14) and a light collector (12) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the receiver (300) with a known technique of a known receiver (100) for the purpose of optimally guiding/directing reception signals into respective photodetectors of a known cost effective chip and where such technique optimally concentrates light from a wide angle field of view onto the respective photodetectors and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical receivers,…) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver (100) into another similar receiver (300), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7. Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and Gurovich also discloses the light reception device, wherein the plurality of light receiving elements included in the light receiving element array are allocated to any one of groups including a number of the light receiving elements that fall within a light receiving range in which the spatial optical signal transmitted from one communication target is received (Gurovich Fig 1, where the plurality of light receiving elements included in the light receiving element array (14) are allocated/assigned to any one of groups (i.e. as shown in Van Wageningen Fig 8) which includes a number of the light receiving elements that fall within a light receiving range (e.g. field of view) in which a spatial optical signal transmitted from one communication target (e.g. a transmitter) is received).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wageningen et al (US Pub 20240305384) in view of Taguchi et al (US Pub 20180145758) in further view of Gurovich et al (US Pub 20120076509) in further view of Kyosuna et al (US Pub 20200004115).
Regarding Claim 8. Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and Gurovich also discloses a communication device comprising: the light reception device (Van Wageningen Fig 8, where a communication device comprises the light reception device with the receiver (300)).
Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and Gurovich fails to explicitly disclose a light transmission device that transmits a spatial optical signal; and a controller comprising a second memory storing instructions, and a second processor connected to the second memory and configured to execute the instructions to acquire a signal based on a spatial optical signal received by the light reception device, execute processing according to the acquired signal, and cause the light transmission device to transmit a spatial optical signal associated to the executed processing.
However, Kyosuna discloses
a light transmission device that transmits a spatial optical signal (Fig 21, where a receiver (30) comprises a light transmission device (10) that transmits a spatial optical signal); and
a controller comprising a second memory storing instructions, and a second processor connected to the second memory and configured to execute the instructions to acquire a signal based on a spatial optical signal received by a light reception device, execute processing according to the acquired signal, and cause the light transmission device to transmit a spatial optical signal associated to the executed processing (Fig 21, Fig 23, where the receiver (30) comprises a controller (40) (as also shown in Fig 23), which comprises a second memory storing instructions, and a second processor connected to the second memory and is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a signal based on a spatial optical signal received by the receiver (30), execute processing according to the acquired signal, and cause the light transmission device (10) to transmit a spatial optical signal associated to the executed processing (i.e. as shown in Fig 23)) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver (300) as described in Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and Gurovich, with the teachings of the receiver (30) as described in Kyosuna. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver (30) can comprise a light transmission device (10) and a controller (40) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the receiver (300) as described in Van Wageningen as modified by Taguchi and Gurovich have the receiver (300) comprise a light transmission device (10) and a controller (40) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the receiver (300) with a known technique of a known receiver (30) for the purpose of optimally controlling transmission signals based on processed reception signals and where such technique optimally generates desired transmission signals with optimal brightness and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical receivers,…) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver (30) into another similar receiver (300), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 is/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 DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2636
Prosecution Insights