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 Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “patten” in line 11 should be --pattern--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-7 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 2 recites the limitation "the wireless equipment" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-7 depend on claim 2; therefore, they suffer the same deficiencies.
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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathews (US 20130272223 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, Mathews discloses a method and system to control wireless node (commissioned device 700 includes an optical sensor 701, Para. 58) by visible light flash pattern recognition, comprising following steps:
S1: flashing and illuminating, through a light-emitting device, a photo sensor on a wireless device according to a preset frequency or coding way (the commissioned device 700 includes an optical sensor 701 that is employed as a transducer to receive WLAN configuration data packets which are transmitted over an optical channel 709 by a commissioning device, Para. 58);
S2: continuously reading, through the wireless device, sample data from the photo sensor, and based on the sample data, decoding a flash frequency or coding way of the light-emitting device (The demodulator 702 may employ accurate timebase data to sample the transmission at a higher rate than the original timebase 604 used by the modulator 605 of FIG. 6, Para. 58);
S3: entering, through the wireless device, different states or carries out operations corresponding to the coding way according to a result data gained by decoding (The commissioning messages provide the WLAN configuration data 706, which is used by the product to join the WLAN, Para. 58).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews, and further in view of Fujita (US 6288455 B1).
Regarding claim 2, 9, Mathews discloses wherein the step S2 further comprises following steps: S21: continuously reading, through the wireless equipment, readouts of the photo sensor; S22: according to readout variations by the photo sensor, calculating an artificial visible light flash frequency and outputting it to a follow-up recognition process flow (The output of the demodulator 702 is then sent to clock recovery 704. The clock recovery utilizes the line coding added by the transmitter to discover the original timebase used by the modulator 605. The clock recovery 704 then discards any extra samples and removes the line coding. The output of clock recovery 704 is then sent to an FEC decoder 705 which corrects any errors found in the transmission and recovers one or more commissioning messages, Para. 58).
Mathews fails to disclose the step of powering on the wireless equipment first.
Fujita teaches a device’s power supply can be turned on by receiving an optical signal (col. 6, lines 13-19).
From the teachings of Fujita, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mathews to include the step of powering on the wireless equipment first in order to receive additional optical communications to allow configuration of the wireless device.
Regarding claim 3, Mathews discloses wherein in the step S21, analyzing a proportional change of the readouts of the photo sensor or an absolute value change exceeding to a certain threshold to determine whether it is an artificial visible light flash; if it is, then carrying out the step S22 (Operationally, the microcontroller 401 includes processing circuits that are employed to format and configure WLAN configuration packets which are optically transmitted by the camera flash 407 by modulating the flash 407 on and off to transmit the packets according to any well known communication protocol or via a proprietary protocol, Para. 29);
if not, returning to the step S21 (via light received not according to a communication protocol or proprietary protocol, Para. 49).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews, and further in view of Sadwick (US 20190013960 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mathews and Fujita teach The method to control wireless node by visible light flash pattern recognition according to claim 3, wherein the step S3 comprises following steps:
S31: powering on the wireless device to initialize a pattern recognition state machine and continuously reading out the currently read by the photo sensor (via optical signal to power on device, see rejection of claim 2 above);
S32: determining whether it is the artificial visible light flash (light received according to a communication protocol or proprietary protocol, Para. 49); if it is, calculating frequency and time and updating the pattern recognition state machine, then returning to the step S31 (The output of the demodulator 702 is then sent to clock recovery 704. The clock recovery utilizes the line coding added by the transmitter to discover the original timebase used by the modulator 605. The clock recovery 704 then discards any extra samples and removes the line coding. The output of clock recovery 704 is then sent to an FEC decoder 705 which corrects any errors found in the transmission and recovers one or more commissioning messages, Para. 58 of Mathews).
Mathews and Fujita fail to disclose if not, matching a corresponding pattern in accordance with a condition of the pattern recognition state machine and carrying out a next step; S33: determining whether the pattern recognition state machine matches any preset pattern; if yes, carrying out operations corresponding to a matched pattern or entering a corresponding state; if not, resetting to the pattern recognition state machine and returning to the step S31.
Sadwick teaches a wireless device sending optical commands and recognizing the optical commands at an electronic device to allow remote preset operations of the electronic device (an infrared LED that can output commands the devices recognize, Para. 45, 118).
From the teachings of Sadwick, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mathews and Fujita to include if not, matching a corresponding pattern in accordance with a condition of the pattern recognition state machine and carrying out a next step; S33: determining whether the pattern recognition state machine matches any preset pattern; if yes, carrying out operations corresponding to a matched pattern or entering a corresponding state; if not, resetting to the pattern recognition state machine and returning to the step S31 in order to allow remote control or not of the wireless device based on result of recognition of the optical commands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights