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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 1, 2025; September 19, 2025; November 9, 2025; and June 29, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Thirteen (13) sheets of drawings were filed on October 1, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 9-12 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 claim 9; the claim recites “the optical transmitter unit of claim 1” in line 1, however claim 1 is directed to a filter unit. Additionally, the claim recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 9 to – of claim 5—to cure the noted deficiencies because claim 5 defines a transmitter unit and a controller. Claim 9 will be examined as if this change has been adopted for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 10; the claim recites “the optical transmitter unit of claim 1” in line 1, however claim 1 is directed to a filter unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 10 to – of claim 5—to cure the noted deficiency because claim 5 defines a transmitter unit. Claim 10 will be examined as if this change has been adopted for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 11; the claim recites “the optical transmitter unit of claim 1” in line 1, however claim 1 is directed to a filter unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 11 to – of claim 5—to cure the noted deficiency because claim 5 defines a transmitter unit. Claim 11 will be examined as if this change has been adopted for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 12; the claim recites “the optical transmitter unit of claim 1” in line 1, however claim 1 is directed to a filter unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 12 to – of claim 5—to cure the noted deficiency because claim 5 defines a transmitter unit.1 Claim 12 will be examined as if this change has been adopted for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 14; the claim recites the limitation “optionally wherein at least one communication channel…” in lines 5-7. It is unclear if this limitation is required since it says “optionally”. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will assume that the optional features are not required by the invention of claim 14.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leavesley (WO 2014/025777 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4; Leavesley discloses a filtering unit, the filtering unit configured to receive visible light and output visible light, the filtering unit comprising: an optical band-pass filter configured to narrow pulses of modulated light emitted by the array of light sources (see paragraph 25 and claim 10 of Leavesley), wherein the optical band-pass filter has an optical bandwidth of over 0.5 nanometers (see paragraph 25 and claim 10 of Leavesley), and wherein the optical band-pass filter has an optical bandwidth of from 5 to 15 nanometers (10-15 nm band pass filter; not greater than about 15 nm; see paragraph 25 and claim 10 of Leavesley), and further comprising: an input coupling (light receiving side of band pass filters 22) configured to receive light and direct the received light into the optical band-pass filter (22), and an output coupling (light transmitting side of the band pass filters 22) configured to direct light filtered by the optical band-pass filter (22) out of the filtering unit (22; the filtering unit comprises a plurality of band-pass filters 22).
The examiner notes that “for an optical communication system… to receive light transmitted by an array of light sources and output visible light for a receipt at an optical receiver comprising a photodetector array” is an intended use of the filtering unit. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a filtering unit as stated in the preamble and that the array of light sources and optical receiver comprising the photodetector array are not part of the filtering unit and therefore do not structurally limit the filter unit and/or constitute patentable weight with respect to the filtering unit.
Claims 5-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (CN 107707302 A).
Regarding claim 5; Jiang discloses an optical transmitter unit (data transmitting system; see the title), the optical transmitter unit comprising: an array of light sources (“the LED light source of said LED light signal emitting end is white light LED light emitting diode or LED array”; see page 5 of the machine translation of Jiang, attached hereto), each light source (LED) configured to transmit visible light; a controller configured to: receive data from a transmitting computer system, and encode and transmit the data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources (the signal is encoded using differential Manchester encoding, which inherently requires a controller for encoding; see claim 5 of Jiang).
The examiner notes that “for connection to an optical receiver unit via a multicore fibre optic cable” and “transmitting along a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable for receipt at a corresponding photodetector array of the optical receiver unit” identify an intended us of the claimed optical transmitter unit”. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
The examiner notes that “the filtering unit of claim 1” does not form part of the optical transmitter unit to which the claim is directed as stated in the preamble of claim 5, and therefore does not structurally limit the transmitter unit and/or constitute patentable weight with respect to the transmitter unit.
Regarding claim 6; Jiang discloses the optical transmitter unit of claim 5, wherein: a plurality of the light sources (LED array) are each configured to form a communication channel (see Figure 5) with a corresponding photodetector of the photodetector array of the optical receiver unit; and the controller is further configured to modulate the visible light output by the array of light sources to encode (via Manchester coding) and transmit the data in parallel across a plurality of communication channels (a signal modulation and coding circuit chip, carrier code modulation and parallel-signal conversion is provided; see the background discussion in the attached machine translation), optionally wherein the controller is further configured to transmit control information over at least one communication channel in parallel with the data (a signal modulation and coding circuit chip, carrier code modulation and parallel-signal conversion is provided; see the background discussion in the attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 7 and 8; Jiang discloses the optical transmitter unit of claim 6, wherein a maximum data transfer rate per communication channel is 5 Gbps or less (Jiang discloses that a rate of 1.5 Gbps and 3 Gbps lay a solid foundation for realizing high-speed visible light communication; see the background section of the attached machine translation) and/or the optical transmitter unit comprises at least 50 communication channels, and wherein the array of light sources includes a plurality of light sources not used to form a communication channel (illumination lights including auxiliary shooting light emitting LED lamp or light emitting LED array; see the background section of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 9; Jiang discloses the controller comprises analogue circuitry to encode and transmit the data (analogue-to-digital conversion circuit and signal amplify and equalizing circuits are provided; see the background section of the accompanying machine translation).
Regarding claim 11; Jiang discloses the array of light sources is an array of micro-LEDs (“the LED light source of said LED light signal emitting end is white light LED light emitting diode or LED array”; see page 5 of the machine translation of Jiang, attached hereto).
Regarding claim 12; Jiang discloses the array of light sources is disposed on a chiplet (LED chips; see the background section of the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 13; Jiang discloses an optical receiver unit (PD communication system; see the background of the machine translation; Figure 7 shows a PD photosensitive detector that collects light emitting diode modulated optical data signals; see the description of Figure 7; photosensitive detector, PIN photodiode) for connection to an optical transmitter unit via a multicore fibre optic cable (this is an intended use, Jiang also discloses the optical transmitter), the optical receiver unit comprising: a photodetector array, each photodetector in the photodetector array configured to receive modulated visible light having a wavelength of from 580nm to 700nm (see claim 6 of Jiang) from an array of light sources of the optical transmitter unit via a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable (this is an intended use); a controller configured to: receive the output of the photodetectors; decode data from the received output, and provide the decoded data to a receiving computer system (demodulation decoding circuit chip for decoding performs received signal demodulation). The examiner notes that the filtering unit of claim 1 does not form part of the structure of the optical receiver unit of claim 13 and therefore does not bear patentable weight.
Regarding claim 14; Jiang discloses that each photodetector (PD) is configured to form a communication channel with a corresponding light source (LED; see the background section of the machine translation attached hereto); and the controller is further configured to decode data (demodulation decoding is provided by the demodulation decoding circuit chip) received in parallel across a plurality of communication channels (see the back ground discussion of the machine translation of Jiang), optionally wherein at least one communication channel comprises control information received in parallel with the data, and the controller is configured to decode the data based on the control information (see the background section of the machine translation of Jiang).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2021/0364718 A1) in view of Onaka et al. (JP H08237203 A).
Regarding claim 5; Becker discloses an optical transmitter unit (1241) for connection to an optical receiver unit (1242) via a multicore fibre optic cable (20), the optical transmitter unit comprising: an array of light sources (VCSELs; see paragraph 74), each light source configured to transmit visible light along a respective core of the multicore fibre optic cable (20) for receipt at a corresponding photodetector array (APD; see paragraphs 74-77, and Figures 5-6) of the optical receiver unit (1242); a controller(network devices for transferring data; see paragraph 14; multi-chip modules, MCM 15 are interconnected by multicore fibers 20; see Figure 1, wherein the MCMS include EO modulator chips and driving electronics; see paragraph 37 and Figure 1), and wherein a thin-film dielectric filter may be provided at ends of the multi-core fiber (see paragraph 31).
Becker does not specifically state that the system is configured to: receive data from a transmitting computer system, and encode and transmit the data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources, or the filtering unit of claim 1.
The examiner takes Official notice that optical communication systems conventionally receive data from transmitting computer systems, and encode and transmit the data by modulating the visible light output by an array of light sources. Onaka teaches band-pass filters for optical transmission systems may be made of dielectric films that are laminated in multiple layers (“As the band-pass filter 18, an interference filter in which dielectric films are laminated in multiple layers or a bulk type or waveguide type filter using a grating can be used”; see page 6 of the machine translation of Onaka included herewith” and “In order to obtain a narrow bandpass filter having a 3 dB transmission wavelength band of about 1 nm or less, a large number of dielectric films of, for example, 20 layers or more must be formed, and a narrow transmission band with a desired transmission wavelength can be obtained with good reproducibility”; see page 22 of the machine translation of Onaka).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the system to receive data from a transmitting computer system, and encode and transmit the data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources and provide a filtering unit configured to receive visible light and output visible light and formed of a dielectric thin film coating with any desired bandwidth, including an optical band-pass filter configured to narrow pulses of modulated light emitted by the array of light sources, for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, since all of these elements are known in the prior art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6; Becker and Onaka teach and/or suggest the optical transmitter unit of claim 5, wherein: a plurality of the light sources are each configured to form a communication channel with a corresponding photodetector of the photodetector array of the optical receiver unit (see paragraph 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 (see paragraph 2; parallel transmission channels) across a plurality of communication channels, optionally wherein the controller is further configured to transmit control information over at least one communication channel in parallel with the data (an optical data link is formed; see paragraphs 2 and 74-77).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 107707302 A).
Regarding claim 10; before the effective filing date of the preset invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the array of light sources having center wavelengths as desired for optimizing optical communication, including providing central wavelength the same as a center wavelength of any corresponding elements used in cooperation with the transmitter, including optical band-pass filters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 107707302 A) in view of Becker et al. (US 2021/0364718 A1) in view of Onaka et al. (JP H08237203 A).
Regarding claim 15; Jiang discloses an optical transceiver unit for connection to another optical transceiver unit (see the rejection of claims 5-9 and 11-14 with respect to Jiang above). Jiang discloses the optical transceiver unit comprising: an array of light sources (LEDs) configured to transmit visible light having a wavelength of from 580nm to 700nm (400 nm to 700 nm; see claim 6) for receipt at a corresponding photodetector array (PD array) of the other optical transceiver unit; a photodetector array, each photodetector (PD) in the photodetector array configured to receive modulated visible light; a controller configured to: receive first data from a computer system; and encode and transmit the first data by modulating the visible light output by the array of light sources (Manchester coding is applied by a circuit; see claim 5 of Jiang); the controller further configured to: receive the output of the photodetectors (PDs) ; decode (demodulation decoding via decoding circuit chip; see claim 1 of Jiang) second data from the output, and provide the decoded second data to the computer system (MAC layer and PHY layer with MII interface is provided for performing data interaction; see claim 1 of Jiang).
Jiang fails to disclose that the connection is via a multicore fibre optic cable and that a filter is provided in accordance with claim 1. Becker teaches that a multicore fiber (20) may be provided to communicate optical data signals between a light source array and a photodetector array in the claimed manner, wherein a filter may be provided as a dielectric coating on the end of the multicore fiber (20), and Onaka teaches that filters having a narrow bandwidth, which inherently narrows signals in the claimed manner, may be provided by thin film dielectric coatings (see the discussion of Becker and Onaka teaches with respect to claims 5 and 6 above). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the connection via a multicore fibre optic cable and to provide a filter in accordance with claim 1 for the purpose of optimizing the optical performance of the transceiver system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights