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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3,10,11,14-16,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Krug(US 2015/0341113).
Considering claim 1 Krug discloses an optical transceiver configured to connect to a fiber cable having K fiber cores, K>>1(See Paragraph 25,26, fig. 4a i.e. an optical transceiver(24) configured to connect to a fiber cable(22) having K(8) fiber cores(50), K>>1), the optical transceiver comprising: M transmitters, M and K are integers, M<K(See Paragraph 25,26, fig. 4a i.e. M(4) transmitters(72a…72d), M(4) and K(8) are integers, M(4)<K(8) ); and P receivers, P is an integer, P<K, wherein the M transmitters connect to a first set of the K fiber cores in the fiber cable and the P receivers connect to a second set of the K fiber cores of the fiber cable(See Paragraph 25,26, fig. 4a i.e. P(4) receivers(74a,74b,74c,74d), P(4) is an integer, P(4)<K(8), wherein the M(4) transmitters connect to a first set of the K(8) fiber cores(50) in the fiber cable and the P receivers connect to a second set of the K(8) fiber cores(50) of the fiber cable(22)).
Considering claim 2 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the fiber cores are plastic imaging fibers(See Paragraph 25,26, fig. 4a i.e. wherein the fiber cores(50) are plastic fibers).
Considering claim 3 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the M transmitters are each micro Light Emitting Diodes (micro-LEDs) and the P receivers are photodetectors (PDs) (See Paragraph 25,26, fig. 4a i.e. the M transmitters are each micro Light Emitting Diodes (micro-LEDs) and the P receivers are photodetectors (PDs)).
Considering claim 10 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores are fixed(See Paragraph 26,28, fig. 4a i.e. the first set of the K fiber cores(fiber cores(50) for transmitting signals from transmitters(72a…72d)) and the second set of the K fiber cores(fiber cores(50) for receiving signals from receivers(74a…74d) are fixed).
Considering claim 11 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores are determined during operation based on the fiber cable and associated connections to the optical transceiver(See Paragraph 28,33, fig. 4a i.e. the first set of the K fiber cores(fiber cores(50) for transmitting signals from transmitters(72a…72d)) and the second set of the K fiber cores(fiber cores(50) for receiving signals from receivers(74a…74d) are determined(aligned) during operation based on the fiber cable(22) and associated connections to the optical transceiver(24)).
Considering claim 14 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein some or each of the M transmitters and the P receivers operate over a plurality of corresponding K fiber cores(See Paragraph 25,26,28,fig. 4a i.e. wherein some or each of the M transmitters(72a…72d) and the P receivers(74a…74d) operate over a plurality of corresponding K fiber cores(50)).
Considering claim 15 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores are each about half of the K fiber cores(See Paragraph 25,26,28,fig. 4a i.e. wherein the first set of the K fiber cores(4) and the second set of the K fiber cores(4) are each about half of the K fiber cores(8)).
Considering claim 16 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores are each in a circular arrangement with one located in an inner area and one located in an outer ring adjacent to the inner area(See Paragraph 28,fig. 4b i.e. wherein the first set of the K fiber cores(50) and the second set of the K fiber cores(50) are each in a circular arrangement with one located in an inner area and one located in an outer ring adjacent to the inner area).
Considering claim 19 Krug discloses the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the M transmitters comprise different color Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) to provide a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) LED array(See Paragraph 23,33,44,fig. 4a,6 i.e. wherein the M transmitters(72a…72d of fig. 4a) comprise different color Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)(VLC) to provide a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) LED array(32 of fig. 6)).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Dawson et al.(US 2020/0281468).
Considering claim 4 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 3, wherein the micro light emitting diodes each transmit at least 1 Gb/s.
Dawson teaches the optical transceiver of claim 3, wherein the micro light emitting diodes each transmit at least 1 Gb/s(See Paragraph 31 i.e. the micro light emitting diodes(micro-LED array) each transmit at least 1 Gb/s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have the micro light emitting diodes each to transmit at least 1 Gb/s, as taught by Dawson, thus providing an efficient transmission system by optimizing data transmission rate using Micro-LEDS that allow large data rate of 10GB/s, as discussed by Dawson (Paragraph 31).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Kalman et al.(US 2021/0376932 A1).
Considering claim 4 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 3, wherein the micro light emitting diodes each transmit at least 1 Gb/s.
Kalman teaches the optical transceiver of claim 3, wherein the micro light emitting diodes each transmit at least 1 Gb/s(See Paragraph 8 i.e. the micro light emitting diodes(µLED sources) each transmit at least 1 Gb/s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have the micro light emitting diodes each to transmit at least 1 Gb/s, as taught by Kalman, thus providing an efficient transmission system by maximizing data transmission rate using Micro-LEDS that allow data rate of >1GB/s, as discussed by Kalman(Paragraph 8,29).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Ford(US 2010/0111525).
Considering Claim 5 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, further comprising transmitter circuitry configured to receive an aggregate transmit signal and to cause transmission of the aggregate signal as a plurality of lower rate transmit signals, each by one of the M transmitters over a portion of the first set of the N cores; and receiver circuitry configured to receive a plurality of lower rate transmit signals from the P receivers and to create an aggregate receive signal based thereon.
Ford teaches the optical transceiver of claim 1, further comprising transmitter circuitry configured to receive an aggregate transmit signal and to cause transmission of the aggregate signal as a plurality of lower rate transmit signals, each by one of the M transmitters over a portion of the first set of the N cores(See Abstract, Paragraph 28,29, fig. 3 i.e. transmitter circuitry which is demultiplexer(332) configured to receive an aggregate transmit signal(326) and to cause transmission of the aggregate signal as a plurality of lower rate transmit signals(336), each by one of the M transmitters( array of emitters(308)) over a portion of the first set of the N cores of multimode medium(318)); and receiver circuitry configured to receive a plurality of lower rate transmit signals from the P receivers and to create an aggregate receive signal based thereon(See Abstract, Paragraph 28-30, fig. 3 i.e. receiver circuitry which is multiplexer(334) configured to receive a plurality of lower rate transmit signals(338) from the P receivers which is array of detectors(316) and to create an aggregate receive signal(328) based thereon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have transmitter circuitry to be configured to receive an aggregate transmit signal and to cause transmission of the aggregate signal as a plurality of lower rate transmit signals, each by one of the M transmitters over a portion of the first set of the N cores; and receiver circuitry to be configured to receive a plurality of lower rate transmit signals from the P receivers and to create an aggregate receive signal based thereon, as taught by Ford, thus improving data transmission system by minimizing bit error rate, optimize bandwidth and data rate using a MIMO data stream over a multimode medium with multiplexing and demultiplexing circuits, as discussed by Ford (Paragraph 42).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Ford(US 2010/0111525) further in view of Wang et al.(US 2017/0090121).
Considering Claim 6 Krug and Ford do not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 5, wherein the aggregate transmit and the aggregate receive signal are at least 100 Gb/s.
Wang teaches the optical transceiver of claim 5, wherein the aggregate transmit and the aggregate receive signal are at least 100 Gb/s(See Paragraph 40 i.e. the aggregate transmit and the aggregate receive signal are at least 100 Gb/s ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug and Ford, and have the aggregate transmit and the aggregate receive signal are at least 100 Gb/s, as taught by Wang, thus providing an efficient transmission system by optimizing bandwidth and maximizing data transmission rate using WDM TOSA and WDM ROSA assembly at aggregate transmit and receive data rate of at least 100 Gb/s, as discussed by Wang(Paragraph 7, 40).
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Slonecker(US 4,973,169).
Considering claim 7 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the fiber cable includes a plurality of fiber cores used as guard bands.
Slonecker teaches the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the fiber cable includes a plurality of fiber cores used as guard bands(See Col. 3 lines 50-65 i.e. wherein the fiber cable includes a plurality of fiber cores used as guard bands).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have the fiber cable to include a plurality of fiber cores used as guard bands, as taught by Slonecker, thus improving transmission quality by optimizing data security using a guard band that protect information by surrounding data channel, as discussed by Slonecker (Col. 3 lines 50-53).
Considering Claim 8 Krug and Slonecker teaches The optical transceiver of claim 7, wherein the guard bands are in both the first set of the K fiber cores between adjacent M transmitters and in the second set of K fiber cores between adjacent P receivers(See Slonecker: Col. 3 lines 50-65, fig. 3i.e. wherein the guard bands(guard channels) are in both the first set of the K fiber cores between adjacent M transmitters(830nm transmitters,1300nm transmitter) and in the second set of K fiber cores between adjacent P receivers(830nm receiver,1300nm receiver)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113).
Considering Claim 9 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the fiber CABLE has a length of 10 m or less.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Krug such that the fiber cable to have a length of 10 m or less or any length because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Krug.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Horibe et al.(US 7,548,674 A1).
Considering Claim 12 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 11, further comprising alignment circuitry connected to the M transmitters and the P receivers, wherein the alignment circuitry is configured to select the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores.
Horibe teaches the optical transceiver of claim 11, further comprising alignment circuitry connected to the M transmitters and the P receivers, wherein the alignment circuitry is configured to select the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores(See Col. 3 lines 17-37, Col. 4 lines 1-12,fig. 3 i.e. alignment circuitry(110) connected to the M transmitters(140c) and the P receivers(150c), wherein the alignment circuitry(110) is configured to select the first set of the K fiber cores(120) and the second set of the K fiber cores(120)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have alignment circuitry to be connected to the M transmitters and the P receivers, wherein the alignment circuitry to be configured to select the first set of the K fiber cores and the second set of the K fiber cores, as taught by Horibe, thus providing an efficient transmission system by minimizing signal loss/noise by precisely aligning selected fiber cores to transmitters and receivers, as discussed by Horibe (Abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Rector et al. (US 2018/0062749 A1).
Considering claim 17 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the P receivers are selectively disabled based on location and light absorption.
Rector disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the P receivers are selectively disabled based on location and light absorption(See Paragraph 18,29, Claims 10,21, fig. 1 i.e. wherein the P receivers(optical receiver(120)) are selectively disabled by a microcontroller(112) based on location and light absorption(based on a level of detected signal)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have the P receivers are selectively disabled based on location and light absorption, as taught by Rector, thus providing an efficient transmission system by provide a lower and clean voltage to the amplifiers using a voltage regulator, as discussed by Rector(Paragraph 18).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Kindler et al.(US 2009/0116107).
Considering claim 18 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the M transmitters are arranged to allow a plurality of dark cores to be present between the M transmitters
Kindler teaches the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the M transmitters are arranged to allow a plurality of dark cores to be present between the M transmitters(See Paragraph 64,fig. 5 i.e. wherein the M transmitters which are light emitting stripes(403,402,401) are arranged to allow a plurality of dark cores which are opaque cores(531) to be present between the M transmitters(403,402,401)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have the M transmitters to be arranged to allow a plurality of dark cores to be present between the M transmitters, as taught by Kindler, thus providing an efficient transmission system by minimizing interference from adjacent light emitters using an opaque core that block or isolate undesired light from adjacent emitters, as discussed by Kindler (Paragraph 64).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug(US 2015/0341113) in view of Morris et al.(US 2006/0050754).
Considering claim 20 Krug does not explicitly disclose the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein a training algorithm determines which of the M transmitters are able to transmit light into the K fiber cores.
Morris teaches the optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein a training algorithm determines which of the M transmitters are able to transmit light into the K fiber cores(See Paragraph 37,46,58,fig. 9,12 i.e. wherein a training algorithm(training process) from mapping logic(40 of fig. 9)) determines which of the M transmitters which is emitter array(10’ of fig. 9) are able to transmit light into the K fiber cores of fiber(114 of fig. 12))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Krug, and have a training algorithm to determine which of the M transmitters are able to transmit light into the K fiber cores, as taught by Morris, thus providing an efficient transmission system by minimizing error rate due to misalignment by selectively matching the detectors and emitters using a training process, as discussed by Morris (Paragraph 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5145. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 C 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.
/HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights