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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the visible emitted from " at the beginning of paragraph 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670).
Regarding Claim 1, Keeler teaches A lens unit for an optical transmitter unit (FIG. 3: 303), the lens unit configured to: receive light emitted from an array of light sources of optical transmitter unit (FIG. 3: 310); and direct the visible emitted from the array of light sources into a plurality of cores of a multicore fibre optic cable (FIG. 3: 320) connectable between the optical transmitter unit and an optical receiver unit (its inherent that the cable (320) would lead to receiver); wherein the lens unit comprises a single axis of optical symmetry (FIG. 3)
Keeler does not teach visible light
Burnett teaches visible light (p. 3, ¶ 1; FIG. 1)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler’s lens unit to use visible light based on Burnett’s visible light lens unit. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Keeler and Burnett both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches The lens unit of claim 1, comprising: a first lens attachable to the array of light sources. (Keeler, FIG. 3: 303 (the one on the left)).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler’s lens unit to use visible light based on Burnett’s visible light lens unit. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches The lens unit of claim 1, wherein the lens unit comprises an input side configured to receive light from the array of light sources (Keeler, FIG. 3: 303 (left side)), the input side having a field-of-view configured to cover the array of light sources (Id.).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler’s lens unit to use visible light based on Burnett’s visible light lens unit. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches The lens unit of claim 1, wherein the lens unit comprises an output side configured to transmit light into the plurality of cores (FIG. 3: 303 (on the right side)), the output side having a field-of-view configured to cover the plurality of cores. (Id.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler’s lens unit to use visible light based on Burnett’s visible light lens unit. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670) in further light of Pepper (US Pat. 12,080,986 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches The lens unit of claim 2, comprising: and a focusing lens configured to receive the plurality of parallel light beams from the collimating lens and focus the plurality of parallel light beams into the cores of the multicore fibre optic cable (Keeler, FIG. 3: 300 (on the right)).
the combination of Keeler and Burnett does not teach a collimating lens configured to receive light from the first lens and separate the light into a plurality of parallel light beams;
Pepper teaches a collimating lens configured to receive light from the first lens and separate the light into a plurality of parallel light beams; (FIG. 6B: 333’)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler to use Pepper’s collimating lens. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Wherein, the predictable result is Keeler’s lens unit with the separated light channels traveling parallel to each other.
Keeler and Pepper both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670) in further light of Takahito (EP 2475114).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches An optical transmitter unit (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310) for connection to an optical receiver unit (it is inherent that there is a receiver at the end of the fiber optic cable) via a multicore fibre optic cable (Keeler, FIG. 3: 320), the optical transmitter unit comprising: an array of light sources (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310) each light source configured to transmit visible light having a wavelength of from 580nm to 700nm (Burnett, p. 3, ¶ 1; FIG. 1), along a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable (Keeler, FIG. 3: 320) a controller (FIG. 3: 310) configured to: receive data from a transmitting computer system (it’s inherent that a computer would be passing data to the transmitter), and encode and transmit the data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources (FIG. 3: 310); and the lens unit of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Takahito teaches for receipt at a corresponding photodetector array of the optical receiver unit (FIG. 13: 24-1, 24-2);
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keeler’s transmitter with Takahito’s receiver. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Takahito and Keeler both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito teaches The optical transmitter unit of claim 6, wherein the controller comprises analogue circuitry to encode and transmit the data. (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keeler’s transmitter with Takahito’s receiver. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches A system comprising the optical transmitter unit of claim 6. via a multicore fibre optic cable (Keeler, FIG. 3: 320), the optical receiver unit comprising: each photodetector in the photodetector array configured to receive modulated visible light having a wavelength of from 580nm to 700nm from an array of light sources of the optical transmitter unit via a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable; (Burnett, p. 3, ¶ 1; FIG. 1)
Takahito teaches and an optical receiver unit connected to the optical transmitter unit (FIG. 13); a photodetector array (FIG. 13: 24-1, 24-2), and a controller configured to: receive the output of the photodetectors (FIG. 13: 5); decode data from the received output (Id.), and provide the decoded data to a receiving computer system. (it’s inherent that there would be a computer waiting to receive data from the receiver)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication system taught by Keeler such that the receiver was the receiver taught in Takahito. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito teaches The system of claim 12, wherein: each photodetector is configured to form a communication channel with a corresponding light source (Takahito, FIG. 13: 24-1, 24-2); and the receiver controller is further configured to decode data received in parallel across a plurality of communication channels (FIG. 13: 5).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication system taught by Keeler such that the receiver was the receiver taught in Takahito. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Keeler and Burnett teaches An optical transceiver unit for connection to another optical transceiver unit via a multicore fibre optic cable, the optical transceiver unit comprising: an array of light sources configured to transmit (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310) visible light having a wavelength of from 580nm to 700nm (Burnett, p. 3, ¶ 1; FIG. 1) along a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable (Keeler, FIG. 3: 320) and a controller configured to: receive first data from a computer system (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310); and encode and transmit the first data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310);
Takahito teaches for receipt at a corresponding photodetector array of the other optical transceiver unit (FIG. 13); a photodetector array (FIG. 13: 24-1, 24-2), each photodetector in the photodetector array configured to receive modulated visible light from a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable (FIG. 13); the lens unit of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) the controller further configured to: receive the output of the photodetectors (FIG. 13: 5); decode second data from the output (Id.), and provide the decoded second data to the computer system. (it’s inherent that there would be a computer for receiving the processed data)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication system taught by Keeler such that the receiver was the receiver taught in Takahito. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670) in further light of Takahito (EP 2475114) and in further light of Kawahara (Kawahara, H., Optical Full-mesh Network Technologies Supporting the All Photonics Network, NTT Technical Review Vol. 18 No. 5 (May 2020)).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito teaches The optical transmitter unit of claim 6, wherein: a plurality of the light sources (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310) are each configured to form a communication channel with a corresponding photodetector of the photodetector array of the optical receiver unit (Takahito, FIG. 13: 24-1, 24-2); and the controller is further configured to modulate the visible light output by the array of light sources to encode and transmit the data in parallel across a plurality of communication channels (Keeler, FIG. 3: 310),
the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito does not teach optionally wherein the controller is further configured to transmit control information over at least one communication channel in parallel with the data.
Kawahara teaches optionally wherein the controller is further configured to transmit control information over at least one communication channel in parallel with the data. (p. 26, ¶ 2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler such that control information was sent in parallel with the data as is taught by Kawahara. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Kawahara and Keeler both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito teach The system of claim 13,
the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito does not teach wherein at least one communication channel comprises control information received in parallel with the data, and the receiver controller is configured to decode the data based on the control information.
Kawahara teaches wherein at least one communication channel comprises control information received in parallel with the data, and the receiver controller is configured to decode the data based on the control information. (p. 26, ¶ 2).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Keeler such that control information was sent in parallel with the data as is taught by Kawahara. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670) and in further light of Takahito (EP 2475114) and in further light of Kawahara (Kawahara, H., Optical Full-mesh Network Technologies Supporting the All Photonics Network, NTT Technical Review Vol. 18 No. 5 (May 2020) and in further light of IEEE ("Dense wavelength division multiplexing," 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2001).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, Takahito, and Kawahara teaches The optical transmitter unit of claim 7,
the combination of Keeler, Burnett, Takahito, and Kawahara does not teach wherein a maximum data transfer rate per communication channel is 5 Gbps or less and/or the optical transmitter unit comprises at least 50 communication channels.
IEEE teaches wherein a maximum data transfer rate per communication channel is 5 Gbps or less and/or the optical transmitter unit comprises at least 50 communication channels. (p. 1, slide 4)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter taught in in Keeler to use to data rate and number of channels taught in IEEE. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Keeler and IEEE both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeler (US Pat. 10,234,632) in light of Burnett (GB 2,388,670) and in further light of Takahito (EP 2,475,114) and in further light of Weverka (US Pat. 11,916,598).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, and Takahito teaches he optical transmitter of claim 6,
the combination of Keeler, Takahito, and Burnett does not teach wherein the array of light sources is an array of micro-LEDs.
Weverka teaches wherein the array of light sources is an array of micro-LEDs. (FIG. 1: 100)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter taught in Keeler such that that the optical transmitter used an array of micro-LEDs as is taught in Weverka. Such a combination would merely be simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Weverka and Keeler both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Keeler, Burnett, Takahito, and Weverka teaches The optical transmitter of claim 6, wherein the array of light sources is disposed on a chiplet. (Weverka, Col. 5, l. 55-60)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter taught in Keeler such that that the optical transmitter used an array of micro-LEDs as is taught in Weverka. Such a combination would merely be simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 June 16, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights