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 § 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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are not sufficiently clear to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 recites: “at least one movable light receiver having a light receiver movably installed in a direction perpendicular to the annular track…” The relationship between the recited “movable light receiver” and “a light receiver” is unclear. It is not reasonably ascertainable whether the movable light receiver and the light receiver are the same structure or whether the movable light receiver includes a separate light receiver component. As a result, the scope of the claim is ambiguous.
Claim 1 further recites: “an optical waveguide that is disposed in association with each of the plurality of direction detection light receiving elements…” The phrase “disposed in association with” fails to clearly define the structural or optical relationship between the optical waveguide and the direction detection light receiving elements. It is unclear whether the optical waveguide must be directly connected, optically coupled, adjacent, or otherwise related to the direction detection light receiving elements. Therefore, the claim language does not particularly point out the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 2 recites: “an incident end of the optical waveguide is connected to the wavelength filter, and an emission end of the optical waveguide is connected to a light reception part of each of the plurality of direction detection light receiving elements.” The term “connected to” is unclear as to whether a direct or indirect connection is required. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is uncertain.
Claim 5 recites: “the plurality of direction detection light receiving elements is disposed on a substrate disposed at a position away from the condensing region of the ball lens…” The phrase “at a position away from the condensing region” is relative and does not clearly define the spatial relationship between the substrate and the condensing region. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 6 recites: “a communication light guide that is disposed in a condensing region of the ball lens and guides an optical signal condensed by the ball lens…” The term “communication light guide” lacks clear structural definition and is recited primarily by function. In addition, the recitation that the communication light guide “guides an optical signal condensed by the ball lens” does not sufficiently define the structure required to perform this function. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites: “a horizontal movement mechanism that moves the light receiver along a circumference of a circle centered on a center point of the ball lens in a horizontal plane…”
And “a vertical movement mechanism that moves the light receiver along a circumference of the circle centered on the center point of the ball lens in a vertical plane perpendicular to the horizontal plane.” The geometric relationship between the claimed movement mechanisms and the movement of the light receiver is unclear. In particular, the phrase “along a circumference of a circle… in a vertical plane” is difficult to construe with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the claim language fails to particularly point out the invention.
Claim 8 recites: “a communication controller that comprises a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions…” The claim recites the communication controller in processor-based terms, but the structural relationship between the claimed controller and the remainder of the receiver is not clearly defined. Further, the recited functions of the processor are broad and functional, and do not clearly delimit the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim 9 recites: “move the horizontal movement mechanism and the vertical movement mechanism included in the moving support base in such a way that a light receiving face of the light receiver faces an incoming direction of the detected spatial optical signal…” The phrase “in such a way that” is functional and does not clearly identify the specific control operations required. Accordingly, claim 9 is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites: “a communication device comprising: the receiver according to claim 1; a transmitter that transmits a spatial optical signal; and a communication controller that controls the transmitter according to an optical signal detected by the receiver.” Because claim 10 depends from claim 1, it incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim 10 is therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2012/0275795 A1) in view of Dawson et al. (US 12,130,141 B2).
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
a ball lens;
an annular track disposed in such a way as to surround a lower portion of the ball lens;
at least one movable light receiver having a light receiver movably installed in a direction perpendicular to the annular track and movably disposed along an outer periphery of the annular track;
a communication light receiving element disposed with a light reception part facing the ball lens;
a plurality of direction detection light receiving elements disposed in an annular shape with the communication light receiving element as a center;
a wavelength filter disposed between the receiving elements and the ball lens; and
an optical waveguide associated with each of the plurality of direction detection light receiving elements.
Chan et al. teaches a ball-lens-based optical transceiver and a detector receiving a focused optical signal via a ball lens. See, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0009], [0025]-[0038]. Dawson et al. teaches mechanically positionable optical masking and aperture-limiting structures for selectively controlling a light path. See, e.g., paragraphs [67], [70]-[71], [74]-[92], [127]-[166].
It would have been obvious to provide the ball-lens receiver of Chan et al. with the selective optical path control teachings of Dawson et al. to improve rejection of unwanted light and to facilitate reception of desired optical signals. The use of known mechanical positioning structures to control light paths and exposure in optical systems is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
To the extent claim 1 recites a plurality of direction detection light receiving elements and an optical waveguide arranged to guide condensed light thereto, such additional features would have been obvious design modifications for enhancing directional sensing and optical alignment in view of the combined teachings of the references. Chan et al. already teaches optical reception through a ball lens, and Dawson et al. teaches selectively controlling portions of a field of view, which would have suggested the use of additional sensing and filtering elements to discriminate desired optical signals from unwanted light.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chan et al. and Dawson et al..
Claims 2–7 depend from claim 1 and further recite limitations including:
the optical waveguide including an optical fiber;
the movable light receiver including a moving support base and a curved support column;
the communication light receiving element and direction detection light receiving elements disposed on the same substrate or on separate substrates;
a communication light guide and communication optical waveguide; and
horizontal and vertical movement mechanisms.
Dawson et al. teaches a variety of mechanical positioning mechanisms for optical light blockers and apertures, including:
x-y stage positioning, see paragraphs [74]-[78];
r-θ stage positioning, see paragraphs [83]-[87];
curved track movement, see paragraphs [88]-[91];
movable curtains and electronically controllable apertures, see paragraphs [129]-[166].
It would have been obvious to incorporate known movement structures from Dawson et al. into the optical receiver/transceiver arrangement of Chan et al. to achieve controlled positioning of optical receiving elements and light paths. Substituting one known movement mechanism for another, or applying known optical control structures to a ball-lens receiver, would have been an obvious matter of design choice yielding predictable results.
With respect to optical waveguides and fibers, the use of optical fibers to guide light from a lens to a detector is a well-known and conventional implementation. In view of the ball-lens optical receiver of Chan et al. and the optical path control teachings of Dawson et al., the additional structural limitations of claims 2–7 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, claims 2–7 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chan et al. and Dawson et al..
Claims 8 and 9 recite a communication controller including a memory storing instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire electrical signals derived from received optical signals;
detect an incoming direction of a spatial optical signal;
output information about the incoming direction;
decode a received electrical signal; and
output decoded information.
Claim 9 further recites controlling horizontal and vertical movement mechanisms so that the light receiving face of the light receiver faces the detected incoming direction.
Chan et al. teaches a controller coupled to a transmitter and detector, where the controller receives outgoing data, generates a modulating electrical signal, receives a detector signal, and demodulates the signal to generate incoming data. See, e.g., paragraphs [0025], [0029]-[0030], [0037]-[0038]. Dawson et al. teaches a processor-controlled optical system in which a controller adjusts the exposure of a field of view based on optical information and stored data. See, e.g., paragraphs [124]-[126], [157]-[166], [177]-[189], and [2200]-[2508].
It would have been obvious to implement the receiver of Chan et al. with processor-based optical control functions similar to those taught in Dawson et al. to automatically adjust optical reception and signal processing. The combination would merely automate known optical alignment and signal-handling operations in a predictable manner.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chan et al. and Dawson et al..
Claim 10 recites a communication device comprising:
the receiver of claim 1;
a transmitter that transmits a spatial optical signal; and
a communication controller that controls the transmitter according to an optical signal detected by the receiver.
Chan et al. expressly teaches a wireless optical transceiver including a transmitter and receiver under control of a controller, wherein the controller receives outgoing data, modulates a first optical signal, receives a detector signal, and demodulates the incoming signal. See, e.g., paragraphs [0005]-[0009], [0025]-[0030], [0037]-[0038], [0047]-[0058]. Dawson et al. Pfurther teaches controlling optical exposure and signal reception using processor-based control. See, e.g., paragraphs [124]-[126], [177]-[189].
It would have been obvious to provide a communication device having the claimed receiver, transmitter, and controller because the prior art teaches the same general arrangement of optical signal transmission, reception, and controller-based signal processing.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chan et al. and Dawson 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