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 § 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 8, 13 and 18 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 8 and similar claims 13 and 18 (i.e. claim 18 in view of claim 15) state “the shielding detection part is configured to generate, based on the information indicating the position or the direction of the terminal, an estimated communication quality using the position or the direction of the terminal, and determine that the shielding is present between the base station and the terminal when the communication quality is lower than the estimated communication quality”. This part of the claim is vague and confusing. Claim 8 already states that the estimated quality is calculated by the shielding detection part, which according to claim 2 already detected shielding, but further goes on to state “determine that the shielding is present…when the quality is lower than the estimated communication quality”. If the calculated estimated communication quality already comprises shielding information, why/how is shielding being determined again when the communication quality is lower than the estimated quality (which already comprises shielding)?
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 7099589) in view of WO (2021/002023 A1) (see attached translated copy for relevant paragraphs).
Regarding claim 1 and similar claims 4 and 5, Hiramatsu teaches a wireless communication system (Fig. 1) comprising: a terminal and a base station (Fig. 1, terminal 110 and base station 100) configured to transmit and receive signals to each other through optical wireless communication (Col. 4, lines 40-45); and a control device which controls the base station, the control device comprising: an information acquisition part configured to acquire information indicating a communication quality from the base station (Col. 4, lines 45-55, the base station…calculating a highest optical signal/noise intensity ratio based on signals of a plurality of photodetectors).
Although Hiramatsu teaches that the base station side comprises an information acquisition part to acquire communication quality information and calculate intensity related information based on the information indicating the communication quality, Hiramatsu doesn’t teach a shielding detection part configured to detect shielding which affects the optical wireless communication between the base station and the terminal or another device.
Hara teaches a shielding detection part configured to detect shielding which affects the optical wireless communication between two communication points (Page 6, paragraph 7, step S08 condition NO due to presence of obstacle there is a drop in illuminance of the light signal; see also Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shielding detection part to detect shielding taught by Hara into the base station which already includes an imaging receiver and associated signal processing circuitry for observing and processing optical information from terminals as taught by Hiramatsu. Additionally, implementing the shielding detection functionality at the base station would therefore utilize the base station’s existing sending and processing resources to obtain information regarding drops in intensity due to the presence of shielding, rather than requiring each terminal to independently perform such actions. Such an arrangement would provide the base station with additional information about the space around the terminals which could be used in managing the optical links.
Regarding claim 2 and similar claims 10 and 15, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein Hiramatsu already teaches that the information acquisition part is configured to acquire information indicating a position or a direction of the terminal (Col. 4, lines 45-55, a base station including a light receiving function of an angle-diversity type detecting a communication request optical signal transmitted from each terminal; (b) the base station comparing among a signal from each photodetector receiving the communication request optical signal, and selecting a photodetector having a highest optical signal intensity or a highest optical signal/noise intensity ratio…and recognizing space cells located in each terminal ; this shows that the information indicates where the signals are coming from (direction/position)), and the shielding detected by the shielding detection part affects the optical wireless communication between the base station and the terminal, and the shielding detection part detects the shielding based on the information indicating the communication quality and the information indicating the position or the direction of the terminal (Hara: Page 6, paragraph 7, step S08 condition NO due to presence of obstacle there is a drop in illuminance of the light signal; see also Fig. 4). Thus, the combination of these references teaches these limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches a computer-readable memory device storing computer-executable program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to execute the method according to claim 5. Such functions taught by Hiramatsu in view of Hara are to be stored and processed by a processor.
Regarding claim 7 and similar claims 12 and 17, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the shielding detection part is configured to determine that the shielding is present between the base station and the another device in response to determining, based on the information indicating the communication quality, that the communication quality of the optical wireless communication between the base station and the another device has deteriorated (Hara: Page 6, paragraph 7, step S08 condition NO due to presence of obstacle there is a drop in illuminance of the light signal; see also Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8 and similar claims 13 and 18, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the wireless communication system according to claim 2, wherein the shielding detection part is configured to generate, based on the information indicating the position or the direction of the terminal, an estimated communication quality using the position or the direction of the terminal (Hiramatsu: Col. 4, lines 45-55, a base station including a light receiving function of an angle-diversity type detecting a communication request optical signal transmitted from each terminal; (b) the base station comparing among a signal from each photodetector receiving the communication request optical signal, and selecting a photodetector having a highest optical signal intensity or a highest optical signal/noise intensity ratio…and recognizing space cells located in each terminal ; this shows that the information indicates where the signals are coming from (direction/position)), and determine that the shielding is present between the base station and the terminal when the communication quality is lower than the estimated communication quality (Hara: Page 6, paragraph 7, step S08 condition NO due to presence of obstacle there is a drop in illuminance of the light signal; see also Fig. 4). Thus, the combination of Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9 and similar claims 14 and 19, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the another device is a sensor configured to periodically transmit detected information to the base station via the optical wireless communication (Fig. 4, the sensor unit 36; Page 2, paragraph 6; Page 6, paragraph 7 shows that the circuit 34 periodically confirms information after receiving information from the sensor, thereby showing that the sensor periodically transmits detected information).
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 7099589) in view of WO (2021/002023 A1) (see attached translated copy for relevant paragraphs) in further view of JP (2022057511) (see attached translated copy for relevant paragraphs).
Regarding claim 3 and similar claims 11 and 16, Hiramatsu in view of Hara teaches the wireless communication system according to claim 2, wherein Hara teaches in page 1, paragraph 4 that infrared rays are used in optical wireless communication.
However, Hiramatsu in view of Hara don’t teach the control device further includes a heat source detection part configured to detect a heat source which affects the optical wireless communication between the base station and the terminal or the another device based on the information indicating the communication quality.
Kanai teaches a heat source detection part configured to detect a heat source which affects the optical wireless communication between the base station and the terminal based on the information indicating the communication quality (Fig. 2, infrared/temperature sensor 14; paragraph [0083] and [0082], The sensor 14 acquires physical environment information indicating the physical environment in a predetermined space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the heat detection part taught by Kanai into the base station which already includes a receiver and associated signal processing circuitry for observing and processing optical information from terminals as taught by Hiramatsu. Additionally, implementing the heat detection functionality at the base station would therefore utilize the base station’s existing sending and processing resources to obtain information regarding the physical environment in a predetermined space, rather than requiring each terminal to independently perform such actions. Such an arrangement would provide the base station with additional information about the space around the terminals which could be used in managing the optical links.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights