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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kowalevicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0179298 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kowalevicz et al. teaches in FIG. 3 an optical wireless communication system comprising: a first transmission device (Kowalevicz et al. teaches in FIG. 3 controller 302 which may include laser sources configured to generate outgoing optical signals that are provided to monostatic optical terminal 304; Kowalevicz et al. teaches in FIG. 1 transmit channel 102a representing the first transmission device) that transmits an optical signal in a wireless manner to a first reception device (e.g. monostatic optical terminal 310f of FIG. 3) via a polarizing filter (Kowalevicz et al. teaches in FIG. 1 waveplate 122 changes polarization state of the signals—see paragraph [0025]—, therefore, it is a polarizing filter) in which a direction of a transmission axis is a first direction (the direction from monostatic optical terminal 304 to monostatic optical terminal 310f in FIG. 3); the first reception device that receives the optical signal transmitted from the first transmission device via the polarizing filter in which the direction of the transmission axis is the first direction; a second transmission device (represented by transmit channel 102b in FIG. 1) that transmits the optical signal in the wireless manner to a second reception device (e.g. monostatic optical terminal 310a of FIG. 3) via the polarizing filter in which a direction of the transmission axis is a second direction (the direction from monostatic optical terminal 304 to monostatic optical terminal 310a in FIG. 3) different from the first direction; and the second reception device that receives the optical signal transmitted from the second transmission device via the polarizing filter in which the direction of the transmission axis is the second direction.
Claim 7 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to 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 later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalevicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0179298 A1) in view of Ritchie (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0302159 A1).
Kowalevicz et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 7. The difference between Kowalevicz et al. and the claimed invention is that Kowalevicz et al. does not teach that the first direction and the second direction are directions orthogonal to each other. As illustrated in FIG. 3 of Kowalevicz et al., the degree between the first direction and the second direction is limited by the field of view. Ritchie teaches in FIG. 2(b) and paragraph [0071] that a transceiver may have a field of view 180 degrees. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Ritchie with the system of Kowalevicz et al. because a large field of view (FOV) allows a transceiver to communicate with devices over a large region. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a field of view of up to 180 degrees, as taught by Ritchie, for the system of Kowalevicz et al. With a field of view of 180 degrees, it is obvious that, in FIG. 3 of Kowalevicz et al., two monostatic optical terminals 310i and 310j within the FOV of optical terminal 304 may form an angle of 90 degrees with the monostatic optical terminal 304.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
Claim 6 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl31 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights