CTNF 18/744,979 CTNF 101714 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED OFFICE ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-06-17 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Claim Status 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-8 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed. Drawings 06-36 AIA 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 claimed limitation within claim 3 is not shown within the drawings, namely that the recited “adjustment time” is time required for adjustment of an angle of an “antenna” of the light sending and receiving section. Figures 1, 3, and 4 illustrate the light sending and receiving section as including optical components such as the light sending section 10t, light receiving section 10r, collimator lens 10tc, lens 10ra, light receiving element 10rb, and electrical-optical converting sections 10ta and 10rc, but no figure shows any antenna or any structure for adjusting an angle of an antenna. Further, Figure 5 illustrates TOptic, TPoint, TLink, and TLoss, but does not depict any antenna or antenna-angle adjustment corresponding to claim 3. These feature(s) 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(a) 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the originally filed specification, including the drawings, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the presently claimed subject matter. Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites (“the adjustment time being time required for adjustment of an angle of an antenna of the light sending and receiving section”). The originally filed specification does disclose that the communication control section may set the first predetermined time to a sum including an adjustment time TPoint. However, the detailed description of the light sending and receiving section is otherwise limited to optical and electro-optical components. For example, the light sending and receiving section is described as sending and receiving communication light, and the example configuration of Figure 4 describes a light sending section 10t including electrical-optical converting section 10ta, laser light source 10tb, and collimator lens 10tc, and a light receiving section 10r including lens 10ra, light receiving element 10rb, and electrical-optical converting section 10rc. No corresponding structure is disclosed for an antenna forming part of the light sending and receiving section. The disclosure therefore does not reasonably convey possession of a light sending and receiving section having an antenna whose angle is adjusted as recited. The only express mention of the antenna appears in the discussion of TPoint, which states that the adjustment time is a time required to adjust again the angle of an antenna “(not illustrated)” of the light sending and receiving section. Mere mention of an unillustrated antenna, without accompanying structural description showing how that antenna is incorporated into the disclosed light sending and receiving section or how its angle is adjusted in the claimed arrangement, does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed subject matter. The specification does not identify the antenna structure, does not describe where it is located relative to the disclosed optical components, and does not explain how the antenna-based adjustment is implemented in the disclosed free-space optical communication apparatus. The drawings likewise fail to illustrate such an embodiment. Figures 1, 3, and 4 depict the light sending and receiving section using optical components only, and Figure 5 depicts timing relationships only. No drawing identifies any antenna or any mechanism for adjusting an antenna angle. Accordingly, the originally filed specification, including the drawings, does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed subject matter, and claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) 07-36 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites “A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to operate as the free-space optical communication apparatus according to claim 1, the program causing the computer to carry out the communication control process.” Claim 1 is directed to “A free-space optical communication apparatus” comprising a light sending and receiving section and at least one processor. A dependent claim must contain a reference to a previous claim and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 8 does not further limit the apparatus of claim 1. Instead, claim 8 changes statutory class from an apparatus to a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium. As written, claim 8 does not incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1, including at least the recited light sending and receiving section of the apparatus. To the extent applicant intended to pursue a computer-readable medium claim, such subject matter must be presented in independent form rather than as a dependent claim depending from apparatus claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is in improper dependent form under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and content of the prior art; Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter disclosed in the prior art was created by another (i.e., not by the inventive entity) unless proven otherwise. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim, and any evidence of common ownership/assignment as of the effective filing date, so that the examiner may properly 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 claimed invention(s). 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US7106971B1) in view of Haeupler et al. (US9160687B2), and further in view of Calmon et al. (US9537759B2) . Claim 1 Davis teaches a free-space optical communication apparatus having a light sending and receiving section configured to send and receive communication light over an optical wireless path through a turbulent medium, and further teaches delayed transmission of corresponding optical/data-carrying signals so that different transmissions experience different atmospheric conditions. More particularly, Davis expressly teaches in the Abstract: “A delayed diversity approach reduces fading significantly. Data is sent in a set of light signals (also called diverse light signals) which each have a different polarization and/or a different wavelength. The diverse light signals are also temporally different in that they are transmitted in a delayed fashion with respect to one another.” Davis further teaches in the same Abstract: “At a receiver, original data in each received light signals is temporally adjusted and combined into a single output data signal.” [Davis, Abstract]. Davis also expressly teaches the functional building blocks corresponding to a transmitter/receiver arrangement that creates delayed transmissions and then receives and combines them. Davis teaches with respect to FIG. 2 that the communication system includes “SOURCE DATA,” “DELAY DUPLICATOR,” “CONVERTER,” “TRANSMITTER,” “RECEIVER,” “DETECTORS,” and “SYNCHRONIZER.” [Davis, FIG. 2]. Davis further teaches in its method discussion that the method includes “receiving a source data signal having data, creating a set of temporally distinguishable transmission signals, and converting the set of temporally distinguishable transmission signals to obtain corresponding a set of temporally distinguishable light signals.” Davis continues that a transmitting step is used “to transmit the set of temporally distinguishable light signals in a single output transmission beam through the turbulent medium.” [Davis, cols. 1-2, FIG. 6]. However, Davis does not expressly teach packet-level network coding in which the apparatus sends either a first packet or first coded information and then later sends second coded information containing the first packet and a second packet received after a first predetermined time elapses. Haeupler teaches this missing packet-network-coding functionality directly. More particularly, Haeupler teaches: “obtaining a new packet at the node, the new packet having been received at the node from an arbitrary direction; modifying contents of a coding buffer of the node using the new packet ... wherein modifying the contents of the coding buffer includes linearly combining the new packet with packets stored in the coding buffer to generate modified packets and storing the modified packets in the coding buffer; generating a coded packet to be transmitted from the node, wherein generating a coded packet includes linearly combining data stored in the coding buffer using network coding; and causing the coded packet to be transmitted from the node to one or more possibly unknown other nodes.” [Haeupler, cols. 1-4, claim 10]. Calmon further strengthens the teaching of successive layers of coding and later-generated coded packets. More particularly, Calmon teaches in the Abstract that “multiple levels of network coding may be provided within a transmitter in a multiple path scenario, with one level being applied across all paths and another being applied within individual paths.” [Calmon, Abstract]. Calmon also teaches in the detailed description that the transmitter may “generate a new coded packet by linearly combining all original packets that are within a coding buffer ... The coded packets generated by MPTCP/NC layer 54 will be referred to herein as ‘first coded packets’ to distinguish them from subsequently generated coded packets.” [Calmon, cols. 9-10]. Thus, Calmon explicitly reinforces the notion of earlier coded information and later-generated coded information, which is highly probative of the claimed sequence of sending either a first packet or first coded information and thereafter sending second coded information that contains an earlier packet together with later packet content. Accordingly, Davis teaches the claimed free-space optical communication apparatus and teaches the use of a predetermined elapsed time between transmissions to mitigate fading in a free-space optical link. Haeupler teaches receiving a packet, storing/modifying packet content in a coding buffer, and generating a coded packet for transmission by linearly combining packet information. Calmon teaches a coding architecture in which first coded packets are generated and later coded packets are then generated from earlier coded packets and/or original packets. Taken together, the cited combination teaches or at least renders obvious an apparatus in which a light sending and receiving section sends either an earlier packet or earlier coded information and thereafter sends second coded information that contains both earlier packet information and later-received packet information after an elapsed time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Haeupler and Calmon with the FSO delayed-diversity communication apparatus of Davis because each reference addresses the same overarching communication problem: how to preserve data delivery reliability when a communication channel is subject to loss, corruption, or temporary degradation. Davis expressly addresses atmospheric fading in a free-space optical channel and solves it by making temporally separated transmissions so that the different transmissions are less likely to be impaired by the same fade event. Haeupler expressly addresses the corresponding packet-level problem by teaching a node that receives a new packet, updates stored packet content by linearly combining the new packet with packets already in a coding buffer, and then generates a coded packet for transmission using the stored coded content. Calmon expressly reinforces that it was known to use layered or repeated levels of network coding within a transmitter, including first coded packets and later generated coded packets. Therefore, once Davis teaches the desirability of using time-separated transmissions in an FSO fading environment, and Haeupler / Calmon teach the desirability of coding earlier and later packet content together so that later transmissions preserve recoverability of earlier content, it would have been obvious to combine those teachings to improve burst-error resilience in a free-space optical packet system. The combination merely applies known network-coding redundancy and known time-separated FSO transmission techniques for their expected purpose namely, increasing the probability that a receiver will be able to reconstruct packet content despite temporary channel impairment. Such a combination would have involved no change in the basic operation of any reference and would have been a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. Claim 5 Claim 5 expressly teaches the free-space optical communication system form of the same subject matter, i.e., a plurality of free-space optical communication apparatuses in which at least two apparatuses each include the recited light sending and receiving section and at least one processor performing the recited communication control process. More particularly, Davis expressly discloses an optical wireless communication system in which communication is carried out between separate nodes over an optical wireless link. Davis teaches: “FIG. 1B is a diagram of a bi-directional full-duplex optical wireless communication system having a first transceiver 140 at node 120 and a second transceiver 150 at node 130. Each transceiver 140, 150 is coupled to optical wireless link 110.” Davis further teaches that “Transceiver 140 can include one or more transmitters and one or more receivers for sending and receiving a set of delayed diversity light signals.” [Davis, cols. 5-6, FIG. 1B]. Haeupler teaches node-level network coding operations in a network having multiple nodes, including receipt of a new packet from an arbitrary direction, modification of a coding buffer using the new packet, and generation of a coded packet for transmission to other nodes. Haeupler teaches that the method is for “operating a node in a network having a plurality of nodes” and further teaches “generating a coded packet to be transmitted from the node” after “modifying contents of a coding buffer of the node using the new packet.” [Haeupler, cols. 1-4]. Calmon additionally teaches that multiple levels of network coding may be provided within a transmitter and that later-generated coded packets may be based on earlier coded packets. [Calmon, Abstract, cols. 1-4]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of free-space optical communication apparatuses in a system, where at least two apparatuses operate according to the claim-1 packet/coding/time-separation teaching. Davis already provides the FSO multi-node system context, while Haeupler and Calmon provide the packet-coding behavior carried out by nodes in a network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the claimed subject matter in system form because the same reliability rationale that applies at a single node in claim 1 applies even more strongly when multiple FSO apparatuses cooperate in a link or network. In particular, in a system setting, time-separated and coded transmissions between cooperating apparatuses provide predictable robustness against burst fading, lost packets, and other transient impairments. Thus, the claim-5 system form would have been obvious for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, as applied to a plurality of cooperating free-space optical communication apparatuses. Claim 7 Claim 7 expressly teaches the method form of the same subject matter, namely a free-space optical communication method in which at least one processor carries out the recited packet communication control process via a light sending and receiving section. More particularly, Davis expressly teaches a method for optical wireless communication through a turbulent medium. Davis teaches a routine including “INPUT SOURCE DATA SIGNAL,” “CREATE A SET OF TEMPORALLY DISTINGUISHABLE TRANSMISSION SIGNALS,” “CONVERT THE SET OF TEMPORALLY DISTINGUISHABLE TRANSMISSION SIGNALS TO CORRESPONDING LIGHT SIGNALS,” “TRANSMIT THE LIGHT SIGNALS,” “RECEIVE THE LIGHT SIGNALS,” and “TEMPORALLY ADJUST AND COMBINE THE RECEIVED DATA SIGNALS TO PRODUCE A SINGLE OUTPUT DATA SIGNAL.” [Davis, FIG. 6]. Davis’s detailed description likewise teaches that the method includes “receiving a source data signal having data, creating a set of temporally distinguishable transmission signals” and “transmit[ting] the set of temporally distinguishable light signals in a single output transmission beam through the turbulent medium.” [Davis, cols. 1-4]. Haeupler teaches a machine-implemented method in which a new packet is received at a node, the coding buffer is modified by linearly combining the new packet with packets already in the coding buffer, and a coded packet is generated for transmission. Haeupler expressly teaches “obtaining a new packet at the node” , “modifying contents of a coding buffer of the node using the new packet” , and “generating a coded packet to be transmitted from the node.” [Haeupler, cols. 1-2, cols. 15-16]. Calmon further teaches the successive-coded-packet aspect by teaching that “multiple levels of network coding may be provided within a transmitter” and that “first coded packets” may be followed by “subsequently generated coded packets.” [Calmon, Abstract, cols. 1-2, cols. 9-10]. Therefore, the combined references teach or render obvious the claimed method steps of causing a light sending and receiving section to send either a first packet or first coded information and then causing the light sending and receiving section to send second coded information containing the first packet and a second packet after a first predetermined time elapses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references in method form for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1: Davis teaches a time-separated FSO transmission method for resisting fading, while Haeupler and Calmon teach a packet-coding method for preserving and reconstructing packet content by transmitting coded packet combinations based on earlier and later packet information. Implementing those teachings together as a communication method would have been a routine and predictable extension of the teachings of the cited references. Claim 8 Claim 8, for prior-art purposes only and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection, is interpreted as additionally reciting a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program that causes a computer to operate as the free-space optical communication apparatus of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Davis , Haeupler and Calmon , except where claim 8 expressly teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program that causes a computer to operate as the free-space optical communication apparatus of claim 1. However, within analogous art, Haeupler expressly teaches storage-medium subject matter. Haeupler teaches: “An apparatus including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, operate to perform a method for operating a node in a network ... obtaining a new packet at the node ... modifying contents of a coding buffer ... generating a coded packet to be transmitted from the node ... and causing the coded packet to be transmitted from the node.” [Haeupler, p. 21, cols. 1-2, cols. 15-16]. Haeupler further teaches that the coded-packet-generation logic is machine-implemented within a node device having a coding buffer and coding-buffer-content modifier. [Haeupler, cols. 3-4]. Davis teaches the free-space optical environment and delayed transmission over a turbulent optical path, while Calmon teaches first coded packets and later generated coded packets in a transmitter. Calmon expressly teaches “multiple levels of network coding ... within a transmitter” and further teaches “first coded packets” and “subsequently generated coded packets.” [Calmon, Abstract, cols. 1-2]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to embody the combined packet/coding/FSO-delay functionality of Davis , Haeupler , and Calmon in program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium because Haeupler already teaches that same storage-medium implementation pattern for a node that performs coded-packet operations. The resulting claim-8 subject matter therefore would have been obvious . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeupler et al., and Calmon et al., further in view of Boroson et al. (US11522607B2) . Claim 2 With respect to claim 2, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Davis , Haeupler and Calmon , except where claim 2 expressly teaches that the at least one processor further carries out an estimating process of estimating a duration time of fading which occurs during the packet communication by measuring signal strengths of a plurality of packets received by the light sending and receiving section, and further sets the first predetermined time to an estimated duration which is the duration time of fading estimated through the estimating process. However, within analogous art, Boroson teaches this fading-duration and error-free-duration concept in the specific context of free-space optical communication. Boroson teaches that “can result in the power variations bursts of data corruption at the physical layer (bit errors) and/or link layer (dropped frames) that can last milliseconds or longer. Conversely, there can be intervals of error-free data transmission that can last at least two milliseconds and longer between the bursts of data corruption.” [Boroson, col. 5-6]. Boroson further teaches that “the size of the data block 410 can be selected based upon fading characteristics in a communication channel (e.g., average time scale of power fluctuations ... average duration over which data is received correctly, average duration of signal drop-outs, or some combination of these factors).” [Boroson, col. 13-14]. Accordingly, Boroson teaches or at least renders obvious estimating a fading-related duration by observing received signal behavior over a free-space optical link and using that estimate to control later transmission behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Boroson’s estimation of fading-related duration into the Davis / Haeupler / Calmon combination because Davis already teaches that temporally separated transmissions reduce the effect of fading, while Boroson teaches that the time scale of power fluctuations, the duration of correctly received data, and the duration of signal drop-outs are measurable and useful indicators for setting transmission behavior in an FSO system. Using an estimated fading duration to set the first predetermined time is therefore no more than the predictable application of a known FSO-link measurement to a known time-separated packet/coding scheme to improve reliability . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeupler et al., and Calmon et al., further in view of Boroson et al., and further in view of Yu et al. (CN103326780A), Kingsbury et al. (US10917173B2) and CCSDS 142.0-B-1 (Optical Communications Coding and Synchronization) Claim 3 With respect to claim 3, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Davis , Haeupler and Calmon , except where claim 3 expressly teaches that the first predetermined time is set to a sum of the estimated duration time and at least one selected from the group consisting of an adjustment time and a synchronization time, the adjustment time being time required for adjustment of an angle of an antenna of the light sending and receiving section and the synchronization time being time required for synchronization of a communication signal of the packet communication. However, within analogous art, Boroson teaches the estimated-duration side of this limitation. Boroson teaches that “the power variations can result in bursts of data corruption ... that can last milliseconds or longer” and further teaches selecting transmission behavior based on “average time scale of power fluctuations ... average duration over which data is received correctly ... [and] average duration of signal drop-outs.” [Boroson, cols. 1-5, cols. 12-15]. Additionally, Yu teaches the adjustment-time / angle-adjustment side of this limitation. More particularly, Yu teaches a free-space light communication APT system in which “the APT system comprises an optical part and a servo control part” and in which “the servo control part of APT system comprises a coarse tracking controller ... a universal rotary table and the fine tracking loop controller.” Yu further teaches that “the coarse tracking controller 15 according to the detection result of said light spot detection device 9, by controlling the crude tracking mechanism to control rotation of the universal table 17, [and] the fine tracking loop controller 18 according to the detection result of said light spot detection device 9 control the rotation of the fine tracking mechanism.” [Yu, ¶¶ [0008] - [0011], ¶¶ [0033] - [0035], ¶¶ [0121] - [0122], pp. 10-11]. These teachings expressly support that re-pointing and angular adjustment consume finite non-zero time in an FSO acquisition/pointing/tracking system. Kingsbury reinforces that such FSO re-pointing/reacquisition occurs in staged intervals and with finite accuracy ranges that overlap. Kingsbury teaches that “the coarse stage pointing subsystem has an accuracy range of +/- about 5 degrees when ‘unlocked’ with respect to a beacon, and +/- about 1.25 degrees ... when locked to the beacon. The fine stage pointing subsystem has an accuracy range of +/- 1 degree.” Kingsbury further teaches that “the two-stage pointing control mechanism can achieve a pointing performance of +0.09 mrad 3-σ without bias, sufficient for a 2.1 mrad downlink laser.” [Kingsbury, cols 1-5, FIGS. 6-8, FIG. 27]. CCSDS teaches the synchronization-time side of this limitation in the specific context of free-space optical communications. CCSDS teaches that this standard is “for the channel coding and synchronization of signals to be used in free space optical communications systems” [CCSDS, Foreword, Introduction]. CCSDS further teaches that the Coding and Synchronization Sublayer provides “channel coding; synchronization; and telemetry transfer frame validation.” [CCSDS, p. 2-2]. CCSDS also expressly teaches at the receiving end “Demodulation, Synchronization, Decoding, and Validation Functions” and that “Synchronization Markers present in the SMTF allow synchronization and recovery of each transfer frame.” [CCSDS, pp. 2-4 to 2-5; p. 3-3]. These teachings strongly support that synchronization of the communication signal consumes finite time and is a recognized part of an optical communications receive/transmit chain. Accordingly, Boroson teaches the estimated fading duration, Yu and Kingsbury teach the finite time associated with re-pointing / angle adjustment of a free-space optical terminal, and CCSDS teaches the finite time and functionality associated with synchronization in a free-space optical communications system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because once the Davis / Haeupler / Calmon system uses a time parameter to improve reliability of FSO packet delivery, it would have been obvious to account not only for the estimated duration of the fade itself, but also for the additional operational delays required to reacquire/repoint the FSO terminal and resynchronize the communication signal after or during a fade event. Such a timing sum would merely reflect the practical reality that a communication system does not instantly recover at the exact moment the channel fade ends; instead, finite pointing and synchronization delays must also be accommodated. Thus, setting the first predetermined time to the sum of the estimated duration and one or more additional recovery delays would have been a predictable and technically sensible refinement . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeupler et al. and Calmon et al., further in view of Boroson et al., and Willebrand et al. (US7110678B2) . Claim 4 With respect to claim 4, all claim limitations of claim 1 are taught by Davis , Haeupler and Calmon , except where claim 4 expressly teaches that, in a case of a failure to send either (i) the first packet or first coded information or (ii) the second coded information, the at least one processor causes the light sending and receiving section to send information unsent due to the failure after a second predetermined time elapses from a point in time at which the unsent information should originally have been sent. However, within analogous art, Boroson teaches an ARQ architecture that keeps track of transmitted data blocks, cycles through a slot buffer, receives feedback identifying whether a corresponding data block is to be retransmitted, and continues retransmission accordingly. Boroson teaches that the ARQ controller is adapted to “maintain a slot buffer to store a plurality of identifiers for a plurality of data blocks ... cycle through the slot buffer a plurality of times ... receive feedback information ... indicating whether each data block identified in the slot buffer is requested to be retransmitted or is not requested to be retransmitted ... [and] leave unchanged, in the slot buffer, each identifier ... for which the feedback information indicates that a corresponding data block is requested to be retransmitted.” [Boroson, col. 12-14]. Boroson further teaches that “the ARQ controller 120 begins cycling through the slot buffer 310 ... retrieving the data blocks identified by entries ... [and] the transmission process continues as the ARQ controller 120 cycles through all entries in the slot buffer 310 in round robin manner.” [Boroson, col. 15-16]. Willebrand further teaches the failure-detection / backup-transmission side of this limitation in an FSO context. More particularly, Willebrand teaches a method comprising “transmitting data in an optical signal through a free-space optical path of a communication link extending through a terrestrial free-space region; detecting degradation of the optical signal; and transmitting data through a backup communication path in response to detected degradation of the optical signal.” Willebrand also teaches “automatically switching from the active mode to a standby mode upon optical beam degradation in the terrestrial free-space region.” [Willebrand, cols. 1-2; Summary, col. 13-15, FIGS. 7-9]. Accordingly, Boroson teaches keeping data blocks pending and re-sending them in a later cycle after a transmission failure is recognized, which corresponds to sending previously unsent information after an additional predetermined time. Willebrand teaches the complementary FSO-side recognition that when degradation or failure occurs in the optical path, transmission is shifted to a backup path or otherwise repeated in response to the failure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this failure-recognition and later resend behavior into the Davis / Haeupler / Calmon FSO packet/coding system because once coded packet redundancy and time separation are used to resist fading, it is further desirable to ensure that any packet or coded information that was supposed to be sent but was not successfully sent is transmitted in a later cycle rather than abandoned. Boroson supplies that later-cycle / re-transmission discipline, and Willebrand supplies the FSO-failure-recognition context. The combination would therefore have predictably improved reliability of the coded FSO packet system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Haeupler et al., and Calmon et al., and further in view of Hafeez et al. (US8205140B2) . Claim 6 With respect to claim 6, all claim limitations of claim 5 are taught by Davis , Haeupler and Calmon , except where claim 6 expressly teaches the claimed decoding process in which an unprocessed packet, first coded information, and second coded information are capable of being decoded, and wherein one free-space optical communication apparatus decodes the unprocessed packet, first coded information, and second coded information sent from another free-space optical communication apparatus. However, within analogous art, Hafeez directly teaches receiving a constituent packet and a related network-coded packet, then using soft values based on both packets to recover the constituent information represented in the coded packet. Hafeez teaches in the Abstract that “a network node includes a receiver circuit that determines soft values for received packets corresponding to the information bit groups associated with network coding operations ... first soft values are determined for the information bit groups in a first (received) constituent packet and second soft values are likewise determined for the information bit groups in a network-coded (received) packet that depends on the first constituent packet and a second constituent packet. Third soft values are generated for the information bit groups of the second constituent packet based on jointly evaluating the first and second soft values.” [Hafeez, Abstract]. Hafeez further teaches in the detailed description that “the processing begins with the node 10 receiving a first constituent packet and a (related) network-coded packet ... [and] processing continues with the generation of first soft values for the information bit groups of the first constituent packet and second soft values for the information bit groups of the network-coded packet.” Hafeez then teaches “the receiver circuit 12 jointly evaluat[es] the first and second soft values to obtain third soft values representing the information bit groups of the implicitly received packet (Step 104)” Hafeez further teaches “recovering the information bits of the implicitly received second constituent packet based on decoding the third soft values (Step 106).” [Hafeez, cols. 1-4, cols. 5-7; FIG. 3; FIGS. 4-5; FIGS. 8-10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hafeez’s receiver-side network-coded-packet decoding techniques into the system of Davis / Haeupler / Calmon because once the transmitting side of the FSO system is modified to send coded packet combinations that preserve recoverability of earlier packet information, the receiving side would predictably require or benefit from a decoding process that uses an uncoded packet and a related coded packet to recover the represented constituent information. Hafeez supplies precisely that missing decode logic. Further, Hafeez’s decoding approach is fully compatible with the packet-level coding taught by Haeupler and the layered coding taught by Calmon . Thus, combining Hafeez with the earlier references would have been a straightforward and predictable way to enable the receiver of the FSO system to decode unprocessed packets, first coded information, and second coded information from another apparatus, as recited. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem , whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday. 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. /MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2635 /DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 2 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 3 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 4 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 5 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 6 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 7 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 8 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 9 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 10 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 11 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 12 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 13 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 14 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 15 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 16 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 17 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 18 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 20 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 21 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 23 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 24 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 25 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 26 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/744,979 Page 27 Art Unit: 2635
Prosecution Insights