DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recitation of “the detector is arranged to surround the main detector at least partially” in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, both recite a straylight signal originating from an environment of a target but then later states that this is from a transmission directed towards the target area. This seems to be a contradiction since light can not originate from and be directed towards a same area. Furthermore, it is unclear what “neighbor transmission” means in the context of the claims (i.e. What constitutes what is or is not a neighbor of the apparatus? Is there a proximity requirement?) Dependent claims 2-12 do not cure claim 1 of these issues and are rejected under similar rationale.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim refers to a “main detector”; however, it is unclear where the main detector would be in the system as it is not positively recited as being in the apparatus. It is also unclear how the detector would be a “separate detector” as only one detector has been positively recited in the apparatus.
Further regarding claims 5 and 6, both refer to “the main detector” but neither depend on claim 4 which first recites this limitation. Therefore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of prior art rejections, both claims 5 and 6 will be taken to depend on claim 4.
Further regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the device is configured to make use of a discriminated dedicated signal component to support coordinated channel access of multiple basic service sets with overlapping coverage areas.” (emphasis added) The second underlined portion merely shows a result to be achieved in the system and it is unclear how a signal would be “used” to achieve this result. Furthermore, as no other specifics are given, it appears that any number of “uses” not contemplated by Applicant could be encompassed by this recitation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the meets and bounds of claim 9 to be unclear.
Further regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a busy signal generator configured to generate the dedicated signal component”.(emphasis added) However, device claimed has the apparatus of claim 1 which is configured to receive the dedicated signal component. It would not make sense for the same device to generate and receive the dedicated signal for the purposes of detecting channel occupancy. Dependent claim 11 does not cure claim 10 of this issue, and is similarly rejected.
Further regarding claim 11, claim recites “the transmission optical of the device used for the main transceiver.” (emphasis added) There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 12, the final line of the claim recites “the neighborhood”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knibbe et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0200226.
Regarding claim 1, Knibbe teaches an apparatus for detecting a busy channel in an optical wireless communication (see Knibbe Figure 1, remote controller 104a), the apparatus comprising:
a detector (see Figure 3, which per paragraph [0022] is an embodiment of a remote controller, light detector 304) for detecting a straylight signal originating from an environment of a target area (see Figure 1, signal from light source 102 and paragraph [0045], “Alternatively, the remote controller 104a, 104b, 300 may be placed such that it only receives the modulated part of the light emitted by the light sources 102. For example, the remote controller 104a, 104b, 300 may be mounted in the ceiling of a room, thereby receiving modulated light reflected by furniture, walls or the floor of the room”); and
a discriminator for monitoring the detected straylight signal to discriminate a dedicated signal component that indicates channel occupancy by a neighbor transmission directed towards the target area (see Figure 4, processing unit 302 and paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Knibbe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the dedicated signal component comprises at least one of an additional out-of-band modulation, a code or address information allowing transmitter identification (see Knibbe paragraph [0029]), a pilot carrier, a transmitter-specific spectral signature, a subset of subcarriers or a single subcarrier of the neighbor transmission.
Regarding claim 3, Knibbe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the dedicated signal component is an intermittent signal component (see Knibbe paragraph [0032]).
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) 4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knibbe et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0200226 in view of Breuer et al, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0098709 and Kagawa et al, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0044188.
Regarding claim 4, Knibbe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the detector is a separate detector with at least one of higher amplification or sensitivity, increased detection surface, and smaller signal bandwidth, as compared to a main detector used for the optical wireless communication.
However, Breuer in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for detecting (see Breuer Figure 1, computing device 200) a dedicated signal component in a light signal (see Figure 1, signal from luminaire 100 to computer device 200 and paragraph [0116]) as taught in Knibbe wherein
the apparatus is configured to perform optical wireless communication (see Figure 2A, which is an embodiment of luminaire 100 of Figure 1, communication module 170 communicating with server 300 and paragraph [0089], “In some cases, computing device 200 may be configured to receive data from server/network 300, for example, which serves to supplement LCom data received by computing device 200 from a given LCom-enabled luminaire 100”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of an apparatus performing optical wireless communication as taught in Breuer with the system taught in Knibbe, the motivation being to allow networking with the lights in Knibbe thereby expanding utility in the system.
Knibbe in view of Breuer does not expressively teach wherein the detector is a separate detector with at least one of higher amplification or sensitivity, increased detection surface, and smaller signal bandwidth, as compared to a main detector used for the optical wireless communication.
However, Kagawa in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for detecting (see Kagawa Figure 3) a dedicated signal component in a light signal (see Figure 3, 1st light receiver 10 to ID data processor 12) configured for optical wireless communication (see Figure 4, 2nd light receiver 11 to data reception processor 14) as taught in Knibbe in view of Breuer wherein
the detector is a separate detector with at least one of higher amplification or sensitivity, increased detection surface (see Figure 3, image sensor 100 and paragraph [0071], “The image sensor 100 has a two-dimensional array of micro photo-receiving elements, an example of which is a CMOS image sensor”), and smaller signal bandwidth, as compared to a main detector used for the optical wireless communication (see Figure 3, light receiving device 110 and comparative sizes of the beams input into elements100 and 110).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of separate detectors for communication and dedicated signals as taught in Kagawa with the system taught in Knibbe in view of Breuer, the motivation being to allow separate specialized processing of the signals thereby increasing the accuracy in decoding each in the system.
Regarding claim 6, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim [4], and further teaches straylight receiving optics allocated to the detector (see Kagawa Figure 3, lens 101 as combined with Knibbe Figure 3) and configured to provide a wider field of view than a field of view of main receiving optics allocated to the main detector used for optical wireless communication (see Kagawa Figure 3, lens 111 receiving “high-directivity light”).
Regarding claim 7, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 6, but does not expressively teach wherein the straylight receiving optics are controllable to provide a variable field of view.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the receiving optics of Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa with controllable optics as claimed to yield the predictable results of dynamically adjusting the field of view based on system needs.
Regarding claim 8, Knibbe teaches an optical wireless communication device comprising an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 but does not expressively teach the device comprising a transceiver for optical wireless communication.
However, Breuer in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a device comprising an apparatus for detecting (see Breuer Figure 1, computing device 200) a dedicated signal component in a light signal (see Figure 1, signal from luminaire 100 to computer device 200 and paragraph [0116]) as taught in Knibbe wherein
the apparatus is configured to perform optical wireless communication (see Figure 2A, which is an embodiment of luminaire 100 of Figure 1, communication module 170 communicating with server 300 and paragraph [0089], “In some cases, computing device 200 may be configured to receive data from server/network 300, for example, which serves to supplement LCom data received by computing device 200 from a given LCom-enabled luminaire 100”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of an apparatus performing optical wireless communication as taught in Breuer with the system taught in Knibbe, the motivation being to allow networking with the lights in Knibbe thereby expanding utility in the system.
Knibbe in view of Breuer does not expressively teach the device comprising a transceiver for optical wireless communication.
However, Kagawa in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a device comprising apparatus for detecting (see Kagawa Figure 3) a dedicated signal component in a light signal (see Figure 3, 1st light receiver 10 to ID data processor 12) configured for optical wireless communication (see Figure 4, 2nd light receiver 11 to data reception processor 14) as taught in Knibbe in view of Breuer,
the device comprising a transceiver for optical wireless communication (see Figure 4, 2nd light receiver 11 and 1st and 2nd transmitters 30 and 31).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of a transceiver for wireless optical communication as taught in Kagawa with the system taught in Knibbe in view of Breuer, the motivation being to allow more data throughput in the system via bidirectional communication between the device and light sources.
Regarding claim 9, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the device is configured to make use of a discriminated dedicated signal component to support coordinated channel access of multiple basic service sets with overlapping coverage areas (see Breuer Figure 1 which shows light from three luminaries 100 reaching computing device 200 and paragraph [0041] as combined with Knibbe Figure 1. While Breuer teaches these features, the underlined portion is an intended use/result to be achieved that is given little patentable weight).
Regarding claim 10, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the device further comprises a busy signal generator configured to generate the dedicated signal component and to add the dedicated signal component to a drive signal for a main transmitter or a separate transmitter of the transceiver (see Kagawa Figure 3, ID data transmission processor 33 to 2nd light transmitter 31 and paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the busy signal generator is coupled to a transmission optics of the device that provides a wider field of view (see Kagawa Figure 3, diverging lens 311 outputting diffuse light) than the transmission optics of the device used for the main transmitter (see Kagawa Figure 3, “high directivity light” output from lens 301).
Regarding claim 12, Knibbe in view of Breuer and Kagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the device is configured to exchange with at least one other optical wireless communication device via a backbone network information about a channel usage by the transceiver (see Breuer Figure 1, inter-luminaire communication between luminaires 100 and paragraph [0055] as combined with Knibbe Figure 1) for cross correlation with detected straylight signals to identify an optical wireless communication device located in the neighborhood or related interferences (see Knibber Figure 1, signal 110 between remote controllers 110 and paragraph [0031]. As with above, the underlined portion is an intended use/result to be achieved which is given little patentable weight).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knibbe et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0200226 in view of Breuer et al, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0098709.
Regarding claim 14, Knibbe teaches a method of detecting a busy channel in an optical wireless communication, the method comprising:
generating a dedicated signal component to indicate an occupied channel (see Knibbe Figure 4, step 402 and paragraph [0037]);
transmitting the dedicated signal component towards a target area (see Figure 1, signal from light source 102 to remote controller 104a);
detecting a straylight signal originating from an environment of the target area (see Figure 4, step 404 and paragraph [0045], “Alternatively, the remote controller 104a, 104b, 300 may be placed such that it only receives the modulated part of the light emitted by the light sources 102. For example, the remote controller 104a, 104b, 300 may be mounted in the ceiling of a room, thereby receiving modulated light reflected by furniture, walls or the floor of the room”); and
monitoring the detected straylight signal to discriminate the dedicated signal component as an indicator for channel occupancy by a neighbor transmission (see Figure 4, step 406).
Knibbe does not expressively teach transmitting the dedicated signal component together with an optical communication signal towards a target area.
However, Breuer in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for transmitting a dedicated signal component in a light signal to a target area (see Breuer Figure 1, signal from luminaire 100 to computer device 200 and paragraph [0116]) as taught in Knibbe comprising
transmitting the dedicated signal component together with an optical communication signal towards a target area (see Figure 2A, which is an embodiment of luminaire 100 of Figure 1, communication module 170 communicating with server 300 and paragraph [0089], “In some cases, computing device 200 may be configured to receive data from server/network 300, for example, which serves to supplement LCom data received by computing device 200 from a given LCom-enabled luminaire 100”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of an apparatus performing optical wireless communication as taught in Breuer with the system taught in Knibbe, the motivation being to allow networking with the lights in Knibbe thereby expanding utility in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635