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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP2023-188000, filed on November 1, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on October 29, 2024 and April 17, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doniec (USPUB 20140212142).
As per claim 1,
Doniec teaches an underwater optical communication system (FIGs. 1A-1C; FIG. 5, optical underwater communication system 110) comprising:
a first optical communication device being arranged underwater, and including a first light emitter and a first light receiver (FIGs. 1A-1C, optical modems 26a and/or 26b);
a second optical communication device being provided to a moving body for moving underwater (FIG. 1A, tethered optical receiver 12; FIG. 1B, UUV 32; FIG. 1C, SCUBA divers 42a and 42b), including a second light emitter and a second light receiver and performing bidirectional optical communication between the second optical communication device the first optical communication device (FIG. 5, receiver 112 and transmitter 113; Paragraph [0024] – "In other embodiments, bidirectional communication between a UUV and a sensor enables adaptive control of the transmission properties (e.g. packet size) to optimize transmission latency and frame success rate (e.g. a measure of reliability)."); and
a control device for presenting at least one of a recommended relative position and an unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication based on disturbance light (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold.").
Doniec does not explicitly teach presenting at least one of a recommended relative position and an unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication based on disturbance light.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intensity of light received is affected by noise such as any disturbance light. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the position until the intensity exceeds a threshold is functionally equivalent to determining positions that are recommended or unrecommended. Recommended positions are equivalent to positions where the intensity exceeds a threshold and unrecommended positions are equivalent to positions where the intensity does not exceed a threshold.
As per claim 2, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Although Doniec does not explicitly teach wherein the control device presents the at least one of the recommended relative position and the unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication based on light intensities of the disturbance light in a plurality of directions different from each other, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider several different directions to test the intensity of light for determining the best position.
As per claim 3, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Doniec teaches wherein the control device is configured to move the second optical communication device to a position that is operated or determined based on the presented at least one of the recommended relative position and the unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device (Paragraph [0026] – "With reference to FIG. 1A the optical modem 14 of the optical receiver 12 is substantially aligned to the optical modem 26a of sensor 22a, thus enabling communication between the receiver 12 and the sensor 22a. Following data transfer between the optical receiver 12 and the sensor 22a, the vessel 18 moves the optical receiver 12 towards the sensor 22b to enable data transfer from the sensor 22b.").
As per claim 7, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Doniec teaches the control of the movement of a second optical communication device (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold.").
Doniec does not explicitly teach wherein the control device controls, if the bidirectional optical communication between the first optical communication device and the second optical communication device is interrupted, movement of the second optical communication device to a position that is set to allow the bidirectional optical communication between the first optical communication device and the second optical communication device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that interruption of communication is a situation wherein a threshold is not exceeded.
Therefore, according to the teachings of Doniec, one of ordinary skill would, upon interruption of bidirectional optical communication between the first optical communication device and the second optical communication device, reposition the device to a location that better allows bidirectional optical communication between the two devices.
Claims 4-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doniec (USPUB 20140212142) in view of Hopewell (USPUB 20160352436).
As per claims 4-6, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Doniec does not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 4-6.
However, in an analogous art, Hopewell teaches that illuminance, turbidity, and tidal current can influence the quality of optical underwater transmission (Paragraph [0155] – "In some embodiments, the method 1100 includes determining a characteristics of the aqueous medium in order to adjust a parameter or coding technique associated with transmitting the optical signal. The characteristic can include at least one of a turbidity metric, a water quality, a water current and an opacity. In some embodiments, the method can include using the amount of light detected at the receiver to measure the amount of light at the receiver and thereby discern the water clarity (e.g., turbidity) and/or the distance between the transmitter and receiver."). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that opacity and illuminance are inversely related.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these teachings into the system taught by Doniec to best determine the recommended position for transmission based on the observable effects of disturbance light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hopewell into the underwater optical communication system taught by Doniec in order to characterize disturbance light.
As per claim 11,
Doniec teaches an underwater optical communication method (FIGs. 1A-1C; FIG. 5, optical underwater communication system 110) for performing optical communication between a first optical communication device and a second optical communication device underwater (FIGs. 1A-1C, optical modems 26a and/or 26b; FIG. 1A, tethered optical receiver 12; FIG. 1B, UUV 32; FIG. 1C, SCUBA divers 42a and 42b; FIG. 5, receiver 112 and transmitter 113; Paragraph [0024] – "In other embodiments, bidirectional communication between a UUV and a sensor enables adaptive control of the transmission properties (e.g. packet size) to optimize transmission latency and frame success rate (e.g. a measure of reliability)."); and presenting at least one of a recommended relative position and an unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device based on the acquired information of the disturbance light (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold.").
Doniec does not explicitly teach presenting at least one of a recommended relative position and an unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication based on disturbance light.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intensity of light received is affected by noise such as any disturbance light.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the position until the intensity exceeds a threshold is functionally equivalent to determining positions that are recommended or unrecommended.
Doniec does not teach acquiring information on disturbance light.
However, Hopewell teaches acquiring information on disturbance light (Paragraph [0155] – "In some embodiments, the method 1100 includes determining a characteristics of the aqueous medium in order to adjust a parameter or coding technique associated with transmitting the optical signal. The characteristic can include at least one of a turbidity metric, a water quality, a water current and an opacity. In some embodiments, the method can include using the amount of light detected at the receiver to measure the amount of light at the receiver and thereby discern the water clarity (e.g., turbidity) and/or the distance between the transmitter and receiver.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these teachings into the system taught by Doniec to best determine the recommended position for transmission based on the observable effects of disturbance light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hopewell into the underwater optical communication system taught by Doniec in order to characterize disturbance light.
As per claim 12, the combination of Doniec and Hopewell teaches claim 11.
Doniec teaches receiving an input for moving at least the second optical communication device based on the presented at least one of the recommended relative position and the unrecommended relative position of the second optical communication device based on the input for moving at least the second optical communication device (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold."; Paragraph [0026] – "With reference to FIG. 1A the optical modem 14 of the optical receiver 12 is substantially aligned to the optical modem 26a of sensor 22a, thus enabling communication between the receiver 12 and the sensor 22a. Following data transfer between the optical receiver 12 and the sensor 22a, the vessel 18 moves the optical receiver 12 towards the sensor 22b to enable data transfer from the sensor 22b."); and moving at least the second optical communication device based on the input for moving at least the second optical communication device (Paragraph [0026] – "With reference to FIG. 1A the optical modem 14 of the optical receiver 12 is substantially aligned to the optical modem 26a of sensor 22a, thus enabling communication between the receiver 12 and the sensor 22a. Following data transfer between the optical receiver 12 and the sensor 22a, the vessel 18 moves the optical receiver 12 towards the sensor 22b to enable data transfer from the sensor 22b.").
Doniec does not explicitly teach receiving an input for moving. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the position of a modem until the intensity of light received exceeds a threshold inherently involves receiving an input for moving.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doniec (USPUB 20140212142) in view of Strunk (USPUB 20220363357).
As per claim 8, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Doniec does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Strunk teaches a display (FIG. 1, display 56); and the control device acquires positional information including absolute positional information on the first optical communication device and relative positional information on the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device (Paragraph [0024] – "the surface vessel 14 includes a sensor 58 communicatively coupled to the controller 38. The sensor 58 may include any suitable device or combination of devices configured to monitor the position and/or the orientation of the underwater vehicle 12."), and indicates a position of the second optical communication device (Paragraph [0023] – "the user interface 54 includes a display 56 configured to present visual information to the surface vessel operator"), and the at least one of the recommended relative position and the unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication on the display (Paragraph [0027] – "the controller 38 may receive a control input signal indicative of a target virtual position and/or a target virtual orientation of a target virtual underwater vehicle within the virtual environment, and the controller may output a target virtual underwater vehicle signal to the display 56 of the user interface 54 indicative of instructions to display a visual representation of the target virtual underwater vehicle at the target virtual position and/or the target virtual orientation within the virtual environment. In response to receiving the target virtual underwater vehicle signal from the controller 38, the display may present the visual representation of the target virtual underwater vehicle at the target virtual position and/or the target virtual orientation within the virtual environment.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the display of Strunk to visualize the positions with an intensity above or below the threshold described by Doniec (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold.") as well as the relative position between the optical devices based on the location determination taught by Doniec (Paragraph [0032] – "once the optical receiver 60 is within the optical range 58, the precise location of the optical modem 56 on the sensor 52 is determined based on the optical strength of the beam transmitted by the optical modem 56") to provide visual feedback of recommended and unrecommended positions. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also consider acquiring the absolute positional information to provide a consistent fixed point reference. Finally, one of ordinary skill would consider these positions to be classified as visual information that can be presented to an operator on a display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical communication system of Doniec with the display of Strunk to showcase positional information relating to the first and second optical communication device.
As per claim 9, Doniec teaches claim 1.
Doniec does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
However, Strunk teaches a virtual three-dimensional space on which a real-time environment is reflected (Paragraph [0026] – "the surface vessel controller 38 may generate a virtual environment representative of the physical environment in which the underwater vehicle 12 is positioned."; Paragraph [0027] – "as the operator moves the first hand controller, the visual representation of the target virtual underwater vehicle may move in real-time or near real-time within the virtual environment"), and presents the at least one of the recommended relative position and the unrecommended relative position of at least the second optical communication device relative to the first optical communication device in the optical communication in the virtual three-dimensional space (Paragraph [0027] – "the controller 38 may receive a control input signal indicative of a target virtual position and/or a target virtual orientation of a target virtual underwater vehicle within the virtual environment, and the controller may output a target virtual underwater vehicle signal to the display 56 of the user interface 54 indicative of instructions to display a visual representation of the target virtual underwater vehicle at the target virtual position and/or the target virtual orientation within the virtual environment. In response to receiving the target virtual underwater vehicle signal from the controller 38, the display may present the visual representation of the target virtual underwater vehicle at the target virtual position and/or the target virtual orientation within the virtual environment.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the virtual three-dimensional space taught by Strunk using the positional data taught by Doniec (Paragraph [0008] – "In another aspect, the invention features a method of data muling comprising determining a position of a transmit optical modem relative to a receive optical modem based on an intensity of an optical data packet transmitted by the transmit optical modem through an underwater communication channel and received by the receive optical modem. The position is modified until the intensity exceeds a threshold."; Paragraph [0032] – "once the optical receiver 60 is within the optical range 58, the precise location of the optical modem 56 on the sensor 52 is determined based on the optical strength of the beam transmitted by the optical modem 56") to provide visual feedback of recommended and unrecommended positions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Strunk into the optical communication system of Doniec to provide visual feedback of recommended and unrecommended positions that cross the threshold for light intensity.
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takashi (JP 6725835)
Nakao (WO 2023127412)
Melvin (USPUB 20120243375)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ETHAN DELA ROSA-FRIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 EST.
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 C 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.
/JACOB ETHAN DELA ROSA-FRIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights