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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 1-20 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 1 second to last paragraph recites:
generating a set of one or more signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of each received return optical signal of a pair which has not been disabled or whose optical emitter has not been disabled; and
The absence of an article (e.g., “the”) before “received optical signal” makes it unclear if this is a reference to the return optical signals from the preceding two paragraph (in which case the Examiner suggests amending this paragraph to “each of the received return optical signals”, or similar language) or if they are new signals (in which case the Examiner suggests using the article “a” along with a different term to distinguish the different signals). In any event, it is not clear.
Claim 1 second to last paragraph recites:
generating a set of one or more signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of each received return optical signal of a pair which has not been disabled or whose optical emitter has not been disabled; and
It is not clear what is meant by “generating a set of ... signal-to-noise ratios”. It is not clear if this means “measuring” the SNR of each of the received return optical signals, or it may mean generating signals with a particular SNR, or it may mean something else. In any event, it is not clear.
Claim 1 last paragraph recites:
determining a set of pairs each of which includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a subset, of the set of the one or more SNRs, whose number of SNRs is equal to a number of pairs needed to determine the at least one type of the air data parameters and has an SNR larger than other SNRs of the set and not of the subset.
It is not clear how to interpret the “determining a set of pairs each of which includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a subset ...”. It is not clear how to interpret “determining” a set of pairs/receivers. It may be that this means “determining the number of” the pairs/receivers, or “operating” the pairs/receivers, or “measuring” characteristics of the pair/receiver, or “counting” pairs/receivers that satisfy particular conditions, or something else.
Claim 1 last paragraph recites:
determining a set of pairs each of which includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a subset, of the set of the one or more SNRs, whose number of SNRs is equal to a number of pairs needed to determine the at least one type of the air data parameters and has an SNR larger than other SNRs of the set and not of the subset.
It is not clear It is not clear how to interpret “needed to determine the at least one type of the air data parameters”. It is not clear what determination functionality/steps is within the scope of the claim or satisfies this limitation. This language is also discussed in the 112(a) rejections.
Claim 1 last paragraph recites:
determining a set of pairs each of which includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a subset, of the set of the one or more SNRs, whose number of SNRs is equal to a number of pairs needed to determine the at least one type of the air data parameters and has an SNR larger than other SNRs of the set and not of the subset.
It is not clear is this is a reference to the “set of one or more” SNRs introduced in the “generating” paragraph, or if it is a reference to the “set of pairs” introduced in the “determining” paragraph.
Independent claims 8 and 14 recite similar language and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected because they depend from the independent claims and fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Scope of the Claims.
Claim 1 recites:
determining a set of pairs each of which includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a subset, of the set of the one or more SNRs, whose number of SNRs is equal to a number of pairs needed to determine the at least one type of the air data parameters and has an SNR larger than other SNRs of the set and not of the subset.
This has a broad scope that includes any number of pairs needed to determine any number of air data parameters. In other words, it does not appear to be limited to any manner of making the determination of the number needed, and it does not appear to be limited to any particular number needed to determine the parameters.
Independent claims 8 and 14 recite similar language and have a similarly broad scope.
The dependent claims add additional limitations but fail to address the issues raised with regard to the independent claims. As a result, the dependent claims also have a scope that would include steps that go beyond the teachings of the present application.
Teachings of the Application.
As discussed under the 112(b) rejections below, it is not clear what “determination” is within the scope of this limitation. In the interests of compact prosecution, this language is also rejected under 112(a). In particular, the claim recites making a determination of “a number of pairs need to determine the at least one type of air data parameter” but does not define that number. The application at FIG. 4 is a flow chart of the method.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This appears to be the invention recited in the claim. See:
[0041] FIG. 4 illustrates a flow diagram of an exemplary method 440 for satisfies compliance with government regulation, improves human safety, and/or improves OADS performance. Exemplary method 440 may be implemented by one or more of the apparatuses illustrated in FIGS. 1A-3B. To the extent the methods herein are described herein as being implemented with one or more of the apparatuses illustrated in FIGS. 1A-3B, it is to be understood that other embodiments can be implemented in other ways. Techniques described with respect to the embodiments illustrated by FIGS. 1A-3B may be applicable to the method 440. Techniques described with respect to the methods herein may be applicable, all or in part, to the apparatuses described elsewhere herein.
In particular, step 440-12 states to determine a set of pairs needed to determine each type of air data parameter to be determined. See:
[0052] In block 440-12, a set of pairs (of an optical emitter and an optical receiver) is determined. Each pair in the set of pairs includes an optical receiver whose SNR is in a first subset of SNR(s). The first subset of SNR(s) is of the set of SNR(s), or if optional block 440-11 is performed, then of the second subset of SNR(s) rather than the set of SNR(s)). The first subset of SNR(s) excludes any pair, or optical receiver thereof, whose data is discarded pursuant to optional block 440-4. The first subset of SNR(s) includes a number of SNR(s) corresponding to a number of pair(s) of a transmitted optical beam and a return optical signal whose data is needed to determine each type of air data parameter to be determined specified in block 440-8. For example, if only air speed of the vehicle is desired, then possibly only data from one or two pairs of a transmitted optical beam and a return optical signal are needed (e.g., for the OADS, for example, the optical and electrical processing system) to determine air speed. The SNR(s), of the first subset, have the largest SNR(s) of the set of SNR(s) determined in block 440-10, or if optional block 440-11 is performed, then of the second subset of SNR(s) rather than the set of SNR(s)).
This provides an example in which only air speed is determined, and states that the number is “possibly one or two pairs or a transmitted optical beam and a return optical signal are need”. The word “possible” complicates the analysis because it suggests that the number in this example might not be one or two (e.g., more than two may be required). However, if one disregards the term “possibly”, it can be argued that this is a teaching that the number of pairs is one or two in the case where only air speed of the vehicle is being determined. In other words, the application may contain a limited teaching for a single, particular measurement (air speed of the vehicle) using data from one or two beams (and not more). Nonetheless, even when read in the most favorable light, this “teaching” is narrow and does not teach how to make and use the full scope of the claim.
The Claims do not Recite the Particular Structure, Materials, or Steps.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, as discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims is not be commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus/method with the broad scope recited in the claims. If such a general case were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claim 1. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is optical transmission and reception apparatuses and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as optical transmitters, optical receiver, and signal processor. Therefore, no teachings of how to make these individual components is required.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing/coupling the electrical and optical components together (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference that can be generated by such devices (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the disparity between the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Experimentation.
As discussed above, the claims include many possible operations/algorithms and the application does not teach the full scope of the claims. Furthermore, there is no reasonable expectation that all possibilities within the scope of the claims will produce the desired results or functions. As a result, if one of ordinary skill were to attempt to make and use the full scope of the claims, it would require making, testing, or otherwise evaluating all (or at least a very large number of) possible combination of operations/algorithms within the scope of the claims to find what works to perform the claimed functionality. This results in a practically unlimited number of embodiments that would need to be made, tested, or otherwise evaluated to determine which embodiments within the scope of the claims are operative and which are inoperative. In other words, would require almost infinite experimentation in order to make and use the full scope of the claims.
This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the specification fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0013863 (Dou) at FIG. 1 illustrates an optical transmitter including a processor 101 that estimates SNR based on pilot signals and non-pilot signals.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0052] It can be seen from the above embodiment that the transmitter 100 may transmit the data signals containing the pilot signals to the receiver. And as the frequencies of the pilot signals at different polarization states are different, the receiver is enabled to extract the pilot signals and the non-pilot signals at each polarization state according to the frequencies of the pilot signals at different polarization states, thereby accurately estimating an optical signal to noise ratio at each polarization state according to the extracted pilot signals and non-pilot signals, and solving the problems existed in the relevant art.
Regarding the pilot signals, see:
[0053] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of data signals where pilot signals are set of Embodiment 1 of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 2, the data signals include the pilot signals and the non-pilot signals, the non-pilot signals being actually transmitted data, referred to as payload, and the data signals where pilot signals are set being frequency domain signals.
US 2010/0135671 (Park) at FIG. 3 which teaches a VLC transmitter.
PNG
media_image3.png
582
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a corresponding VLC receiver.
PNG
media_image4.png
548
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US 2006/0239689 (Ashdown) teaches several known embodiments of VLC transmitters
PNG
media_image5.png
134
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
281
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US 2007/0127928 (Varshneya) at FIG. 1 illustrates two wireless optical transceivers operating with each other.
PNG
media_image7.png
274
831
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In particular, one device transmits a signal and receives a reflected signal, and the other device receives the transmitted signal and reflects and modulates the reflected signal with feedback data. Varshneya at FIG. 2 illustrates a wireless optical transceiver including a receiver 210 monitoring an incoming signal 224, an optical detector 212 and modulators 226, 242, and modulated optical beam 228(a) reflected by retro-reflector 240.
PNG
media_image8.png
476
711
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in FIG. 2, the incoming signal is modulated and changes with time. Varshneya also teaches to monitor and receive the incoming signal. See, for example:
[0034] An incident transmit signal 224 can include a transmit code, such as a transmit code of the day (TCOD) 224(a). The transmit signal can include a frame-synchronization preamble (not shown) followed by a TCOD 224(a) followed by a TCOD interrogation pulse stream 224(b). In operation, TCOD 224(a) is received by one or more of the plurality of IR sensors 212 and presented to the challenge receiver 210 for verification. When TCOD 224(a) is verified, challenge receiver 210 can be configured to produce a shutter enable signal and a response code. The shutter enable signal can be coupled to a shutter 226 to control the shutter 226 to a transparent state. A filter 244 can also be positioned over the front surface of the corner cube reflector 240 to limit the background light incident on the corner cube reflector 240. The receiver 210 can be configured to generate the response code or can be configured to enable a modulation data source 230 configured to produce the response code.
Varshneya also teaches to modulate/send the reflected signal in response to the received incoming signal. See, for example:
[0034] An incident transmit signal 224 can include a transmit code, such as a transmit code of the day (TCOD) 224(a). The transmit signal can include a frame-synchronization preamble (not shown) followed by a TCOD 224(a) followed by a TCOD interrogation pulse stream 224(b). In operation, TCOD 224(a) is received by one or more of the plurality of IR sensors 212 and presented to the challenge receiver 210 for verification. When TCOD 224(a) is verified, challenge receiver 210 can be configured to produce a shutter enable signal and a response code. The shutter enable signal can be coupled to a shutter 226 to control the shutter 226 to a transparent state. A filter 244 can also be positioned over the front surface of the corner cube reflector 240 to limit the background light incident on the corner cube reflector 240. The receiver 210 can be configured to generate the response code or can be configured to enable a modulation data source 230 configured to produce the response code.
In other words, Varshneya teaches to verify or assess the received signal, and to perform modulation in response thereto.
US 2008/0170863 (Won) at FIG. 1 illustrates a VLC with a transmitter including modulators 110 and LEDs 120, and a receiver with lenses 211, optical filters 212, PDs 213, and demodulators 220.
PNG
media_image9.png
830
435
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights