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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojnar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0250095 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a photonic transceiver module (converter 312 with O/E E/O module) configured to be used with a photonic communication system of an apparatus (Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an optical communication 100 of aircraft 102), comprising at least one signal interface (e.g. antenna 131 of FIG. 1) configured to at least one of receive or transmit a signal at least one of from or to, respectively, at least one of a data collecting or transmitting unit configured to at least one of collect or transmit, respectively, at least one parameter value, an optical modulation unit (Wojnar et al. teaches in paragraph [0030] that the converter 312 has electrical-to-optical modulator circuitry) configured to translate the signal to or from, respectively, an optical domain, and a device adaptor (Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0020] electrically conductive elements 134 for attach the antenna to the optical transceiver) configured to attach the photonic transceiver module to the at least one of the data collecting or transmitting unit to communicate in the optical domain as a node of the photonic communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Wojnar et al. teaches a vehicle communication system (see title of Wojnar et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an aircraft.
Regarding claim 4, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that the antenna 131 provides or is associated with an aperture in a body of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 3 that the optical modulation unit 312 translates different signals to the optical domain with specific different optical wavelengths (see paragraph [0035])
Claim 11 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Wojnar et al. teaches in paragraph [0016] that the apparatus 102 is an aircraft which is a movable vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 vehicle communication system 100 which uses optical cable 120 for communication and, therefore, the communication system is a photonic communication system.
Regarding claim 14, Wojnar et al. teaches in paragraph [0016] that the apparatus 102 is an aircraft which is a movable vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an apparatus 102.
Regarding claim 20, Wojnar et al. teaches in paragraph [0016] that the apparatus 102 is an aircraft.
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) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0250095 A1) in view of Balachandran et al. (U.S. Patent 12,717,032 B1).
Wojnar et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20. The difference between Wojnar et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. does not teach that the at least one signal interface is configured to at least one of send or receive at least one of an optical continuous wave signal or an optical pulse train. Balachandran et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a sensing system comprising a LiDAR (light detection and ranging) device and in FIG. 2 a sensing system as part of the LiDAR system. Balachandran et al. teaches in col. 3, lines 29-30 that the LiDAR emits one or more signals (pulses) (see also col. 12, line 38 which teaches a sequence of pulses). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Balachandran et al. with the system of Wojnar et al. such that a LiDAR in additional to antennas are used because a LiDAR can detect objects around the traveling environment to avoid collision. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a LiDAR system, as taught by Balachandran et al., in the system of Wojnar et al.
Regarding claim 9, Balachandran et al. teaches in FIG. 2 ADC 282 for converting the signals into digital form which are being sent back to the centralized hub device for further process.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0267250 A1).
Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al. have been discussed above in regard to claim 5. The difference between Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al. do not teach that the at least one signal interface is configured to perform direct photonic sampling of an external signal. Hosseini et al. teaches in FIG. 7(A) a LiDAR system comprising an array of switches. The array of switches samples the reflected optical signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Hosseini et al. with the modified system of Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct sample an external optical signal, as taught by Hosseini et al., in the modified system of Wojnar et al. and Balachandran et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. and Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0226885 A1).
Wojnar et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20. The difference between Wojnar et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. does not teach that the optical modulation unit comprises a Mach-Zehnder modulator configured to translate at least one signal to the optical domain. Yamamoto et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a transmitter comprising E/O converters 11-1 and 11-2. Yamamoto et al. teaches in paragraph [0034] that the E/O converters can be implemented using Mach Zehnder modulator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Yamamoto et al. with the system of Wojnar et al. because Yamamoto et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Yamamoto 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 use Mach Zehnder modulators for the E/O converters, as taught by Yamamoto et al., in the system of Wojnar et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0250095 A1).
Wojnar et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20. The difference between Wojnar et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. does not teach that the at least one signal interface is configured to simultaneously at least one of collect or transmit, respectively, at least two different parameter values. However, Wojnar et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that there are three antennas 131-133 and in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 that each antenna can have its own channel for transmitting and receiving signal to/from the centralized hub device. Therefore, it is obvious to simultaneously collect or transmit, respectively, at least two different parameter values.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0250095 A1) in view of Blackwell, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0235574 A1).
Wojnar et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20. The difference between Wojnar et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. does not teach a photodetector for detecting a parameter value at the centralized hub device. Blackwell, Jr. et al. teaches in FIG. 1 O/E converter 36 and in paragraph [0042] that the O/E converter 36 is a photodetector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Blackwell, Jr. et al. with the system of Wojnar et al. and use a photodetector for the O/E converter 212 of Wojnar et al. because Blackwell, Jr. et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Wojnar 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 use a photodetector as O/E converter, as taught by Blackwell, Jr. et al., in the system of Wojnar et al.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0250095 A1) in view of DMSI (DMSI, “IllumiCore®+ MTP® Jumpers & Harness”, November 2016).
Wojnar et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20. The difference between Wojnar et al. and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. does not teach an optical harness. DMSI teaches optical harness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of DMSI with the system of Wojnar et al. because optical harness protects and organizes the fibers so that the wiring can be neatly arranged within the fuselage of an aircraft. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optical harness, as taught by DMSI, in the system of Wojnar et al.
Regarding claim 17, DMSI teaches in the diagram branches of the optical harness for connecting to multiple nodes.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnar et al. and DMSI as applied to claim 16-17 above, and further in view of Gomez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0351987 A1).
Wojnar et al. and DMSI have been discussed above in regard to claims 16-17. The difference between Wojnar et al. and DMSI and the claimed invention is that Wojnar et al. and DMSI do not teach at least one sensory section for sensing at least one of a functional or structural parameter of the apparatus. Gomez et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a communication network within an aircraft comprising sensor suites 316. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gomez et al. with the modified system of Wojnar et al. and DMSI so that the operating conditions of the aircraft can be monitored and controlled. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the operating conditions of the aircraft, as taught by Gomez et al., in the modified system of Wojnar et al. and DMSI.
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.
skl14 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights