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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Welch et al (US Patent No. 7,546,001) in view of Shiraki (US Patent No. 8,050,571).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, referring to Figures 19 and 64, Welch et al teaches a filtering unit (i.e., RxPIC chip 10, Fig. 19) comprising:
a dispersive optical element (i.e., arrayed waveguide grating AWG 30, Fig. 19), configured to: receive modulated light (i.e., modulated light λ1, λ2, …, λn, Fig.19) from an optical transmitter unit (i.e., TxPIC 300, Figs 19 and 64); separate (i.e., grating AWG 30, Fig. 19) the received modulated light into a plurality of optical signals based on wavelength; and direct the plurality of optical signals to a photodetectors (i.e., photodetectors 16-1 to 16-n, Figs. 19) of an optical receiver unit (i.e., RxPIC chip 10, Fig. 19), each photodetector (i.e., photodetectors 16-1 to 16-n, Figs. 19) comprising a filter (i.e., filters 33-1 to 33-n, Fig. 19) and a plurality of corresponding photodiodes each arranged to receive light from a respective one of the plurality of filters; wherein each optical signal is directed into a different one of the photodiodes via the corresponding filter (i.e., Figures 19 and 64, col. 22, lines 46-51, and col. 38, lines 64-67).
Welch et al differs from claims 1 and 15 in that he fails to specifically teach receiving modulated visible light from an optical transmitter unit and a photodetector array. However, Shiraki in US Patent No. 8,050,571 teaches receiving modulated visible light (i.e., modulated visible light X, Figs. 1 and 2) from an optical transmitter unit (i.e., illumination light transmitter 20, Figs. 1 and 2) and a photodetector array (i.e., photodetector array 33, Figs. 1 and 2)(i.e., Figures 1 and 2, col. 2, lines 46-67, col. 3, lines 1-46, and col. 5, lines 48-56). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time invention was made to incorporate the receiving modulated visible light from an optical transmitter unit and the photodetector array as taught by Shiraki in the system of Welch et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing eliminating the wired connection, reducing cost, weight and space of the system, and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Welch et al and Shiraki teaches wherein the dispersive optical element (i.e., dispersive optical element 31 comprises a prism, Fig. 1 of Shiraki, col. 3, lines 28-33) comprises a prism configured to separate the received modulated visible light.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Welch et al (US Patent No. 7,546,001) in view of Shiraki (US Patent No. 8,050,571) and further in view of Tabata (Pub. No.: US 2004/0175186).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Welch et al and Shiraki differs from claim 2 in that it fails to specifically teach the dispersive optical element comprises a lens configured to separate the received modulated visible light. However, Tabata in Pub. No.: US 2004/0175186 teaches the dispersive optical element (i.e., dispersive lenses 4 and 5, Fig. 1) comprises a lens configured to separate the received modulated visible light (i.e., Figure 1, page 2, paragraphs [0034]-[0037]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time invention was made to incorporate the dispersive optical element comprises a lens configured to separate the received modulated visible light as taught by Tabata in the system of the combination of Welch et al and Shiraki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the signal loss , and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Welch et al, Shiraki and Tabata teaches wherein the dispersive optical element (i.e., dispersive optical element 4 and 5, Fig. 1 of Tabata) comprises a zone plate configured to separate the received modulated visible light.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Welch et al (US Patent No. 7,546,001) in view of Shiraki (US Patent No. 8,050,571) and further in view of Lacey et al (Pub. No.: US 2003/0058498).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Welch et al and Shiraki differs from claim 5 in that it fails to specifically teach an input coupling configured to receive light transmitted by an array of light sources of the optical transmitter unit and direct the received light into the dispersive optical element, and an output coupling configured to direct light separated by the dispersive optical element out of the filtering unit. However, Lacey et al in Pub. No.: US 2003/0058498 teaches an input coupling (i.e., lens 24, Fig. 3A) configured to receive light transmitted by an array of light sources of the optical transmitter unit and direct the received light into the dispersive optical element (i.e., grating 28, Fig. 3A), and an output coupling (i.e., lens 26, Fig. 3A) configured to direct light separated by the dispersive optical element out of the filtering unit (i.e., Figure 3A, page 2, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time invention was made to incorporate the input coupling configured to receive light transmitted by an array of light sources of the optical transmitter unit and direct the received light into the dispersive optical element, and an output coupling configured to direct light separated by the dispersive optical element out of the filtering unit as taught by Lacey et al in the system of the combination of Welch et al and Shiraki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the signal loss, and improving the performance of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Pezeshki et al (US Patent No. 11,764,878) discloses LED chip to chip vertically launched optical communications with optical fiber.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
From the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are
unsuccessful the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be
reached on (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization
where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any
inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number
is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights