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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without significantly more.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing, allocating, and controlling communication resources based on grouping and scheduling rules. More particularly, the claims recite dividing a plurality of light emitting elements into clusters, changing cluster combinations in a time-division manner, and transmitting the same light signal from the clustered elements during respective time intervals.
At the level of abstraction used in the claims, this amounts to a resource allocation and scheduling scheme for communication transmission. The additional recitation of “light emitting elements,” “clusters,” “time division,” “reference signals,” and “feedback” does not, by itself, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a manner that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Although the claims recite an optical communication apparatus and transmission of light signals, the claim focus remains on the logical arrangement of transmission resources rather than a specific improvement in computer or optical hardware. The claims do not recite a particular improved optical structure, a specific modulation technique, or a narrowly claimed hardware implementation sufficient to establish significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1–15 are rejected under § 101.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites: “a controller configured to divide the plurality of light emitting elements into a plurality of clusters, each of the plurality of clusters being constituted by at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements, wherein the controller is configured to change a combination of the at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements constituting each of the plurality of clusters in a time division manner and control the plurality of light emitting elements and causes the at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements in each of the plurality of clusters to transmit the same light signal in an individual time interval.”
The claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
1. Ambiguous phrase “the at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements”
This phrase is grammatically unclear and lacks precision. It is not reasonably certain whether it refers to:
one or more light emitting elements in a given cluster,
all elements in a cluster,
or a dynamically changing subset of elements.
The phrase therefore fails to clearly define the bounds of the claimed subject matter.
2. Unclear scope of “in an individual time interval”
The claim recites that the light emitting elements in each cluster transmit the same light signal in “an individual time interval”, but does not clearly define the time interval’s relationship to other time periods, clusters, or slots. It is unclear whether:
each cluster has a separate time interval,
multiple clusters operate within the same time interval,
or the time interval refers to a broader frame structure.
3. Ambiguous relationship between “change a combination” and “transmit the same light signal”
The claim does not clearly specify whether the cluster membership changes:
from slot to slot,
from frame to frame,
in response to feedback,
or according to a predetermined schedule.
The lack of clarity regarding the timing and structure of cluster changes renders the claim scope uncertain.
4. Functional language without clear structural boundaries
The claim recites the controller in highly functional terms, but does not provide sufficient structural limitations to distinguish the claimed subject matter with reasonable certainty. As written, the claim could encompass numerous different scheduling and clustering arrangements.
Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites that the apparatus is a base station apparatus, that the time interval is included in a downlink communication period, and that the controller allocates clusters to terminal apparatuses. While this adds context, it does not cure the indefinite phraseology in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites receiving a feedback light signal and determining a cluster combination based on the feedback signal. The claim remains unclear as to the precise relationship between feedback, cluster selection, and allocation timing.
Claim 4 recites that the feedback light signal includes information indicating the combination of light emitting elements selected by the terminal apparatus. The claim is still indefinite because it does not specify the format, granularity, or use of such information with sufficient precision.
Claim 5 recites multiplexing through code division multiplexing. The claim does not clearly define whether the code division multiplexing is performed in conjunction with all clusters, selected clusters, or selected terminal apparatuses, creating ambiguity.
Claim 6 recites transmitting a cluster-specific reference signal. The term “cluster-specific reference signal” is functionally defined and not clearly bounded by structure or transmission characteristics.
Claim 7 recites measurement information on a per-cluster basis obtained by measurement processing on the cluster-specific reference signal. The claim remains unclear as to what measurement information is required, how it is generated, and how it is reported.
Claim 8 recites transmitting the cluster-specific reference signal of each cluster in a time division manner within one time interval not included in the downlink communication period. The claim does not clearly specify whether this interval is shared, sequential, or separately assigned.
Claim 9 recites transmitting a light emitting element-specific reference signal. The claim is broad and does not clearly distinguish this from the cluster-specific reference signal in terms of control and signaling structure.
Claim 10 recites deriving measurement information on a per-cluster basis from measurement information on a per-light emitting element basis. The claim does not clearly state the derivation algorithm or sufficient conditions for performing the derivation.
Claim 11 recites transmitting both a cluster-specific reference signal and a light emitting element-specific reference signal in a time division manner within one time interval. The
Claim 12 recites a plurality of light emitting elements arranged with increasing angles as distance increases. While more structural than claim 1, the claim is still vulnerable to ambiguity if the relationship is not sufficiently definite in all possible configurations.
Claim 13 recites that when one cluster is constituted by at least two light emitting elements, the controller causes the cluster to be constituted by adjacent light emitting elements. The term “adjacent” is relative and not clearly defined in the claim.
Claims 14 and 15 recite method and program claims that mirror the functional language of claim 1. They therefore suffer from the same ambiguities concerning:
the meaning of “the at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements,”
the scope of “individual time interval,”
the timing of cluster reconfiguration,
and the degree of specificity in the claimed control operations.
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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatibzadeh et al. (US 2020/0336205 A1) in view of Okano et al. (US 2005/0002673 A1), and further in view of BAMBIC et al. (US 2007/0155325 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Khatibzadeh et al. disclose a free space optical communication apparatus comprising an array of optical sources, wherein each optical source of the array of optical sources is individually controllable. See Khatibzadeh et al., Abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0084]-[0088], [0112]. Khatibzadeh et al. further teaches that the optical sources may be turned on/off individually or as part of a group of modules, and that the optical array may be used to provide steerable optical communication links. Okano et al. disclose a communications lighting apparatus having a first light source unit which emits illumination light and a second light source unit which transmits information in the form of an optical signal. See Okano et al., paragraphs [0010]-[0014], [0029]-[0035], [0040]-[0043]. Okano et al. further teach the use of multiple light sources and optical communication with a mobile terminal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the individually controllable array of optical sources of Khatibzadeh et al. to divide the optical sources into a plurality of clusters, each cluster comprising at least one optical source, and to cause the optical sources in each cluster to transmit the same light signal in a time-divided manner, as taught or suggested by Okano et al.. Such modification would provide flexible optical communication coverage, support multi-user optical communication, and improve communication management in a steerable optical array.
BAMBIC et al. further teach modular communication architectures and networked communication devices having multiple modules and a bus for communication and power transmission. See BAMBIC et al., Abstract; claims 1, 28-36; paragraphs [0045]-[0055], [0058]-[0063]. BAMBIC et al. evidence that organizing communication hardware into separately controllable modules and coordinating communication among them was known in the art, supporting the obviousness of the claimed controller-based clustering and time-division control.
Therefore, claim 1 would have been obvious over Khatibzadeh et al. in view of Okano et al., and further in view of BAMBIC et al..
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the optical communication apparatus is a base station apparatus, that the individual time interval is included in a downlink communication period, and that the controller allocates each cluster to at least one terminal apparatus. Khatibzadeh et al. teach a wireless optical communication apparatus suitable for stationary communication and access-point-type deployment. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0084], [0112]. Okano et al. teaches optical communication between a lighting apparatus and a mobile terminal device, thereby evidencing downlink optical communication to a terminal. See Okano et al. , paragraphs [0029]-[0033]. BAMBIC et al. teaches networked communication devices servicing multiple users and nodes. See BAMBIC et al. , claims 1, 28-36.
It would have been obvious to configure the apparatus of Khatibzadeh et al. as a base station apparatus and to allocate clusters to one or more terminal apparatuses in a downlink communication period in order to manage multiple communication links and improve system throughput.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites a light receiving element configured to receive a feedback light signal from the terminal apparatus, and that the controller determines, based on the feedback light signal, a combination of light emitting elements constituting each cluster to be allocated. Khatibzadeh et al. disclose optical detectors and optical repeater arrangements, including an array of optical detectors electrically coupled with optical sources. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraph [0014]. Khatibzadeh et al. also teaches dynamically controlling optical modules in a steerable array. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraphs [0084]-[0088]. Okano et al. teaches optical communication with a mobile terminal device and use of a light-receiving unit. See Okano et al. , paragraph [0030]. BAMBIC et al. teaches communication systems with command/status signaling and network control. See BAMBIC et al. , paragraphs [0048]-[0051], [0071].
It would have been obvious to employ feedback from a receiving terminal to determine the appropriate cluster or combination of optical sources to allocate, because adaptive link control and resource selection are routine in optical and wireless communication systems.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites that the feedback light signal comprises information indicating the combination of the light emitting elements selected by the terminal apparatus. Khatibzadeh et al., Okano et al., and BAMBIC et al. collectively teach conveying information between communication nodes regarding operational configuration, link state, or device selection. In view of the known desirability of adaptive scheduling and configuration reporting, it would have been obvious for the feedback light signal to include information identifying the selected combination of optical sources.
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and recites multiplexing, through code division multiplexing, one or more terminal apparatuses to which the same cluster is allocated within one time interval. BAMBIC et al. describes wireless communications systems and discusses communication protocols including CDMA-type communications in the background section. See BAMBIC et al. , paragraphs [0007]-[0013]. Khatibzadeh et al. disclose multi-user optical communication arrays and access-point-like optical communication systems. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraphs [0084], [0112]. Okano et al. teaches optical communication with mobile terminals and multi-beam/multi-wavelength communication concepts. See Okano et al., paragraphs [0033]-[0043].
It would have been obvious to multiplex multiple terminal apparatuses using code division multiplexing within a shared cluster/time interval to increase the number of supported users and improve communication capacity.
Claim 6 depends from claim 2 and recites that the controller causes the plurality of light emitting elements in each cluster to transmit a cluster-specific reference signal. Khatibzadeh et al. teach link optimization and training bits used to estimate bit-error rate and determine optimum steering angles. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraph [0085]. Okano et al. teaches intermittent optical transmission and signal generation in a communications lighting apparatus. See Okano et al., paragraphs [0033]-[0035], [0049]. BAMBIC et al. teaches network command and status communication among modular communication units. See BAMBIC et al., paragraphs [0048]-[0051], [0071].
It would have been obvious to transmit a cluster-specific reference signal in order to permit measurement and optimization of the communication link for each cluster.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites that the feedback light signal includes measurement information on a per-cluster basis obtained by the terminal apparatus performing measurement processing on the cluster-specific reference signal.
In view of Khatibzadeh et al. teaching training bits and BER-based optimization, and Okano et al. teaching optical communication and reception by a mobile terminal, it would have been obvious for the terminal apparatus to measure the received cluster-specific reference signal and return measurement information for scheduling or link optimization purposes.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and recites that the controller transmits the cluster-specific reference signal of each cluster in a time division manner within one time interval not included in the downlink communication period.
Khatibzadeh et al. teach time-based control of optical modules and dynamic steering of optical beams. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraphs [0084]-[0088]. Okano et al. teaches intermittent emission of optical signals. See Okano et al. , paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0049]. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to transmit cluster-specific reference signals in a time-divided reference interval outside a data transmission period to permit efficient measurement of multiple clusters.
Claim 9 depends from claim 2 and recites that each light emitting element in each cluster transmits a light emitting element-specific reference signal. Khatibzadeh et al. expressly teach an array of individually controllable optical sources, which inherently supports individual source signaling and control. See Khatibzadeh et al., Abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0008]. Okano et al. teach multiple light sources and multi-beam optical communication. See Okano et al., paragraphs [0033]-[0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to transmit element-specific reference signals for individual calibration, measurement, or link adaptation.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites that the feedback light signal includes measurement information on a per-light emitting element basis, and that the controller derives measurement information on a per-cluster basis from that per-element information.
Given Khatibzadeh et al.’s teaching of individually controllable optical sources and link optimization based on measured performance, it would have been obvious to obtain measurement information at the individual optical source level and to derive cluster-level information therefrom as an aggregation or scheduling convenience. BAMBIC et al. further supports modular organization and higher-level coordination of lower-level functional units.
Claim 11 depends from claim 2 and recites that the controller transmits both a cluster-specific reference signal and a light emitting element-specific reference signal in a time division manner within one time interval not included in the downlink communication period.
Khatibzadeh et al. teach optical source arrays and dynamic control; Okano et al. teaches optical signaling and intermittent emissions; and BAMBIC et al. teaches modular, network-managed communication architecture. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to transmit both types of reference signals in a time-divided control interval to facilitate link measurement at both cluster and element levels.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites that the plurality of light emitting elements are arranged with an angle formed by an optical axis of one light emitting element and another increasing as the distance between the elements increases.
Khatibzadeh et al. teach an array of optical sources positioned to provide a finite beam and a steerable far field radiation pattern. See Khatibzadeh et al., paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0016], [0017]. Such array arrangements inherently contemplate differing optical axis directions among the sources. Okano et al. teaches multi-beam optical devices and multiple light sources operating in different wavelengths or beam arrangements. See Okano et al., paragraphs [0033]-[0043].
It would have been obvious to arrange optical sources with increasing angular separation as spatial distance increases to support beam steering, coverage, and optical array design.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites that when one cluster is constituted by at least two light emitting elements, the cluster is constituted by adjacent light emitting elements.
Khatibzadeh et al. teach steerable optical source arrays and grouped optical modules. It would have been obvious to select adjacent emitters when combining multiple emitters into one cluster, because adjacent emitters are naturally suited for overlapping beam coverage and combined transmission. Okano et al. likewise teaches multi-source optical communication configurations where multiple light sources cooperate to transmit information. Therefore, claim 13 would have been obvious.
Claim 14 recites an optical communication method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1, including the steps of dividing the plurality of light emitting elements into clusters, changing cluster combinations in a time division manner, and controlling the light emitting elements to transmit the same light signal in an individual time interval.
For the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, the method of claim 14 would have been obvious over Khatibzadeh et al. in view of Okano et al., and further in view of BAMBIC et al..
Claim 15 recites an optical communication program for causing an optical communication apparatus to perform the method of claim 14.
Because claim 15 merely recites the method of claim 14 in program form, and because the underlying method would have been obvious, the program of claim 15 would likewise have been obvious over Khatibzadeh et al. in view of Okano et al., and further in view of BAMBIC et al..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights