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
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) 1-2 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0380486 A1) in view of Gfeller et al. (U.S. Patent 6,850,709 B1) and Zubow et al. (Zubow et al., “Hy-Fi: Aggregation of LiFi and WiFi using MIMO in IEEE 802.11,” 2021 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), IEEE, 2021). Zubow et al. is provided in IDS dated 10/04/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 an electronic device (LiFi module 20), comprising: a circuit configured to: receive a first radio frequency signal from an external communication device (WiFi communication module 200); use the first radio frequency signal to modulate an optical signal (transmitter 22); and emit the modulated optical signal through free space. The difference between Tao and the claimed invention is that Tao does not teach a plurality of optical emitters and a plurality of optical detectors arranged to provide at least a substantially 90° field of view. Gfeller et al. teaches an apparatus and a method for improved connectivity in wireless optical networks. Gfeller et al. teaches in FIG. 1A a plurality of transceivers 13, 23 and 33 arranged to achieve 360° of horizontal angular coverage (see col. 7, lines 33-35) wherein each transceiver comprises an optical emitter and an optical detector (see col. 7, lines 36-42). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gfeller et al. with the system of Tao because a wide field of view (FOV) accommodate users in different positions. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enlarge the FOV to achieve 360° of horizontal angular coverage, as taught by Gfeller et al., in the system of Tao.
The combination of Tao and Gfeller et al. does not explicitly teach that the circuit is configured to selectively establish an electrical connection between a frequency adjuster and an RF-to-optical converter based on a detection of the first radio frequency signal on a line. The Examiner notes that Tao teaches in FIG. 2 a frequency converter 27. However, Tao fails to give any further description of the frequency converter. The Examiner cites Zubow et al. for teaching the frequency adjuster. Zubow et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a Wi-Fi/Li-Fi converter comprising a variable local oscillator (VLO) that is controlled based on the RF frequency in the Wi-Fi. That is, Zubow et al. teaches that the circuit is selectively (based on the switch setting of RF switches A and B) establish an electrical connection between a frequency adjuster (RF mixer) and an RF-to-optical converter based on a detection of the first radio frequency signal on a line (based on the frequency detected on the Wi-Fi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zubow et al. with the modified system of Tao and Gfeller et al. because Zubow et al. teaches the technical details of implementation that are missing from Tao and Gfeller et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively establish an electrical connection between a frequency adjuster and an RF-to-optical converter based on a detection of the first radio frequency signal on a line, as taught by Zubow et al., in the modified system of Tao and Gfeller et al.
Regarding claim 2, Gfeller et al. teaches in col. 7, lines 33-35 360° of horizontal angular coverage.
Regarding claim 6, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 connector 201 and 202 for connecting to external antennas.
Regarding claim 7, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 that the switches S1 and S2 can be connected to connection port 201 and 202. It is obvious to use a cable to
connectors 201 and 202 is directly couplable to the port or indirectly couplable to the port of the communication device via an extender or a cable.
Regarding claim 8, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0090] a RF mixer for down/up converting the RF signals.
Regarding claims 9-10, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0091] switch S3 and an RF detector 28, which function together to separate TX and RX signals from the WiFi communication module 200 by detecting RF signals on the TX path.
Regarding claim 11, Tao teaches in FIG. 2 receive path 23 which comprises photodiode for converting the optical signal to an electrical signal, a RF mixer for down/up converting the electrical signal; the converted electrical signal is provided to the WiFi communication module 200 via port 201.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al. as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-11 above, and further in view of Velazco (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0306071 A1).
Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2 and 6-11. The difference between Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al. and the claimed invention is that Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al. do not teach that the optical detectors are arranged to provide a substantially spherical field of view. Velazco teaches in FIG. 1 an optical communication device comprising a plurality of detectors 120. Velazco teaches in FIG. 2D various configuration for arranging the detectors, e.g. the configuration at the bottom-right corner has a substantially spherical field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Velazco with the modified system of Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al. because a spherical field of view covers a large space where the other communication entities can reside. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the detectors to provide a substantially spherical FOV, as taught by Velazco, in the modified system of Tao, Gfeller et al. and Zubow et al.
Regarding claims 4-5, based on the examples provided by Velazco in FIG. 2A through FIG. 2D, and FIG. 2 of Gfeller et al., it is obvious to arrange the optical detectors to provide a substantially 270° or 180° FOV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 13-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite that the circuit is configured to selectively establish an electrical connection between a frequency adjuster and an RF-to-optical converter based on a detection of the first radio frequency signal on a line. Applicant asserts that none of the cited references teaches this feature of the claimed solution. For example, Tao teaches a LiFi module 20 with a mixer that is always connected to an optical transmit path 22. Tao's circuit does not comprise any means to selectively establish and/or break a connection between the mixer and downstream RF-to-optical conversion components.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Zubow et al. teaches in FIG. 2 that the RF mixer can be selectively connected between the RF-to-optical converter and the antenna.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
skl10 July 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights