`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/829,693
`
`08/19/2015
`
`Shojirou KIDO
`
`NHPP0143US
`
`5564
`
`08/24/2017 —MARK D. SARALINO (PAN) m
`7590
`51921
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`LIU’ L1
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`2636
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/24/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerott0.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/829,693 KIDO, SHOJIROU
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`LI LIU $2213 2636
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/14/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 7-10 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1 -3 5 63nd 11 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)IZI The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170817
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1. 1 14
`
`1.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`7/14/2017 has been entered.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`2.
`
`The amendment to Specification filed on 2/10/2017 is objected to under 35
`
`U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a)
`
`states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the
`
`invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as
`
`follows: “the preamble has a pattern that cannot be generated by coding according to
`
`Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM) coding rule, in other words, a pattern
`
`not complying with l-4PPM coding rule”, “A payload is coded according to l-4PPM
`
`coding rule” and “A1 has a pattern not complying with l-4PPM coding rule. Since A1
`
`does not comply with l-4PPM coding rule, there are advantages that A1 can be easily
`
`distinguished from the other fields in frame 21 1
`
`In the REMARKS filed on 2/10/2017, the Applicant argues “[t]he Specification of
`
`the present application has been amended herein to correct a clear error. As illustrated
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`in FIG. 5 (shown below) A1 has a pattern in which a signal of "1" indicates a "dark" state
`
`(the state where the light source does not emit light), while a signal of "0" indicates a
`
`"bright" state (the state where the light source emits light). The CP-1223 standard
`
`referenced in the Specification is clear (see CP-1223 standard disclosed in IDS of
`
`August 19, 2015) that in the Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (1-4PPM) a signal
`
`of "1" indicates a "dark" state (the state where the light source does not emit light), while
`
`a signal of "0" indicates a "bright" state (the state where the light source emits light).
`
`Thus, the amendments to the Specification of the present application merely correct this
`
`clear error. No new matter has been added.”
`
`However, first, the pattern shown in Figure 5 is for the A1 field, which is arranged
`
`immediately subsequent to the CRC field. The original disclosure does not disclose that
`
`the preamble is not complying with l-4PPM coding rule.
`
`Second, in the original disclosure, it is clearly stated “the preamble has a pattern
`
`that cannot be generated by coding according to 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation
`
`(4PPM) coding rule, in other words, a pattern not complying with 4PPM coding rule. The
`
`preamble has a time length of, for example, 12 slots” (original Specification: page 9 line
`
`26 to page 10 line 3), “A payload is coded according to 4PPM coding rule. A payload
`
`has, for example, 128 bits (256 slots)” (original Specification: page 10 lines 9-12), and
`
`“A1 has a pattern not complying with 4PPM coding rule. Since A1 does not comply with
`
`4PPM coding rule, there are advantages that A1 can be easily distinguished from the
`
`other fields in frame 211” (original Specification: page 11 line 25 to page 12 line 1). That
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`is, the original disclosure clearly states that the preamble and A1 field are not complying
`
`with 4PPM coding rule, but the payload is coded according to 4PPM coding rule.
`
`Also, the Figure 5 shows the pattern of A1 field, which has 6 slots and is not
`
`coded according to 4PPM coding role which stipulated that only one of the four
`
`consecutive bits is 1 (bright).
`
`Therefore, the original disclosure does not have a “clear error”, all the statements
`
`are consistent. Then, the amendment to the Specification filed on 2/10/2017 is not “to
`
`correct a clear error”, the amendment to the Specification adds new matter.
`
`And more, the Examiner checked the original foreign priority document JP2014-
`
`183714. The foreign application also clear states that the preamble and A1 field are not
`
`complying with 4PPM coding rule, but the payload is coded according to 4PPM coding
`
`rule. The original US patent application is supported by the original foreign application.
`
`Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
`
`3.
`
`The substitute specification filed on 2/10/2017 has not been entered.
`
`Specification
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GEN ERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`(a)
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The
`
`claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a
`
`way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint
`
`inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
`
`possession of the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1 and 11, and thus depending claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, recites the limitations
`
`"in the recognition part, a time-series pattern including a bright state where the light
`
`source emits the visible light and a dark state where the light source does not emit the
`
`visible light has a pattern not complying with Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-
`
`4PPM) coding rule of CP-1223 standard". However, according to the original disclosure,
`
`the recognition part has a pattern complying does not comply with 4PPM coding rule of
`
`CP-1223 standard. The original disclosure does not state that the recognition part has a
`
`pattern not complying with Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation jl-4PPM) coding
`
`rule of CP-1223 standard. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described
`
`in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the
`
`application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`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 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.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Murayama et al (US 2013/0343762) in view of Balasubramanian et al (US 5,557,634).
`
`1). With regard to claim 1, Murayama et al discloses a visible light
`
`communication device (Figures 1, 2, 5 and 6 etc.) comprising:
`
`a light source unit (2/3 in Figures 2—5) configured to emit visible light for visible
`
`light communication; and
`
`a control circuit (10/11/5 in Figures 5 and 6) that generates an original signal of
`
`the light to be emitted by the light source unit,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`wherein the control circuit generates the original signal that includes a payload
`
`part (e.g., the ID information and Additional information in Figure 7), a Cyclic
`
`Redundancy Check (CRC) part (the CRC in Figure 7), the payload part including
`
`identification information (the ID information in Figure 7) identifying the visible light
`
`communication device, the CRC part being determined according to data indicated in
`
`the payload part (basic feature of the CRC).
`
`But, Murayama et al does not expressly disclose a recognition part, and in the
`
`recognition part, a time-series pattern including a bright state where the light source
`
`emits the visible light and a dark state where the light source does not emit the visible
`
`light has a pattern not complying with Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM)
`
`coding rule of CP-1223 standard.
`
`However, to put an additional part at the end of a frame is well known in the art,
`
`e.g., Balasubramanian et al discloses an optical communication system/method, in
`
`which a closing flag (CF in Figure 4) is used to indicate the end of frame; and the
`
`closing flag is arranged immediately subsequent to the CRC part; and the CF part has a
`
`time-series pattern including a bright state (“1” in the binary “01111110” ofthe closing
`
`flag in Figure 4) where the light source emits the light and a dark state (“0” in the binary
`
`“01111110” ofthe closing flag in Figure 4) where the light source does not emit the light
`
`has a pattern not complying with Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM)
`
`coding rule of CP-1223 standard (refer to 112 rejection above. Balasubramanian:
`
`“01111110” binary is not complying with 4PPM coding rule of CP-1223 standard.
`
`Column 4 lines 10-27, the modulation schemes used by Balasubramanian are: ASK,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`NRZI etc., but not the 4PPM. And more, Balasubramanian does not state that the
`
`“0111” is used to encode two message bits (e.g., “00” etc.). The flag of the form
`
`01111110 is commonly known as High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) flag, which is a
`
`data link protocol that uses a unique bit sequence to delimit the start and end of each
`
`packet data unit transported by the data link layer service. In HDLC, frames are
`
`delimited by a sequence of bits known as a "flag"; and the HDLC is based on IBM's
`
`SDLC protocol, which is the layer 2 protocol for IBM's Systems Network Architecture
`
`(SNA). Note: IBM is the assignee of reference Balasubramanian patent. That is, the CF
`
`is not encoded according to a PPM or l-PPM coding rule).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a recognition part or closing flag at
`
`the end of a frame as taught by Balasubramanian et al to the system of Murayama et al
`
`so that the receiver can easily recognize the end of the frame, and also easily and
`
`conveniently recognize the CRC part that is immediately ahead of the closing flag.
`
`2). With regard to claim 2, Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al disclose all
`
`of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. And the combination of Murayama et
`
`al and Balasubramanian et al further discloses wherein the recognition part is shorter
`
`than a preamble part arranged immediately prior to the payload part (Balasubramanian:
`
`the preamble part has two opening flag, OF+OF, which is two binary "01111110"; but
`
`the closing flag has one binary 01111110).
`
`3). With regard to claim 3, Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al disclose all
`
`of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. And the combination of Murayama et
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`al and Balasubramanian et al further discloses wherein the recognition part has a
`
`predetermined fixed signal pattern binary (Balasubramanian: 01111110).
`
`9.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama
`
`et al and Balasubramanian et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Knapp et al (US 2013/0183042).
`
`Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al disclose all of the subject matter as
`
`applied to claim 1 above. And the combination of Murayama et al and Balasubramanian
`
`et al further discloses wherein the recognition part is a signal that enables a receiving
`
`device receiving the light to find the CRC part arranged immediately prior to the
`
`recognition part (Balasubramanian: the CRC part is arranged immediately prior to the
`
`closing flag CF. Since the closing flag CF is last field, when the CF is received, the
`
`
`receiver knows the field before the CF is the CRC. That is, the closing flag enables a
`
`receiving device receiving the light to find the CRC part).
`
`But, Murayama et al does not expressly disclose receiving device receiving the
`
`light to identify the visible light communication device by using the CRC part.
`
`However, Knapp et al discloses an visible light communication and “[b]y
`
`programming a unique manufacturer ID into each controlled device and using such ID
`
`as a seed for the CRC checksum, only messages sent by applications that use the
`
`same ID as the CRC checksum seed will be accepted” ([0044]). That is, from the CRC
`
`the ID can be obtained since the ID is the seed for the CRC checksum; and the ID
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`information is not necessary to be put in the payload field, and then more other
`
`information can be transmitted, or the frame can be made shorter.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Knapp et al to the
`
`system/method of Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al so that the receiver can
`
`use the CRC to identify the visible light communication device to reduce the process
`
`time.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama
`
`et al and Balasubramanian et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryan
`
`et al (US 2015/0147067).
`
`Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al disclose all of the subject matter as
`
`applied to claim 1 above. And the combination of Murayama et al and Balasubramanian
`
`et al further discloses wherein the control circuit generates (a) the original signal
`
`including a part of the identification information (Balasubramanian: Figure 4).
`
`But, Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al do not expressly disclose a radio
`
`beacon transmission circuit that transmits a signal by radio waves, wherein the control
`
`circuit generates (b) a signal including a remaining part of the identification information,
`
`and causes the radio beacon transmission circuit to transmit (b) the signal generated.
`
`But, to use a radio beacon transmission circuit to transmit an ID information is
`
`known in the art. E.g., Ryan discloses a visible light communication (VLC)
`
`system/method, and a radio beacon transmission circuit (e.g., 1110 in Figure 11)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`transmits a signal by radio waves, wherein the control circuit generates (b) a signal
`
`including a remaining part of the identification information (RF ID, Figures 12 and 13
`
`etc.), and causes the radio beacon transmission circuit to transmit (b) the signal
`
`generated.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a radio circuit as taught by Ryan et
`
`al to the system/method of Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al so that the ID of
`
`the VLC can be quickly and conveniently identified.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Murayama et al (US 2013/0343762) in view of Balasubramanian et al (US 5,557,634)
`
`and Ryan et al (US 2015/0147067).
`
`Murayama et al discloses a receiving device (Figures 8 and 12; also refer Figure
`
`11, the receiving device 60/61) for visible light communication, the receiving device
`
`comprising:
`
`a light receiver (31 in Figure 8) that receives light from a visible light
`
`communication device; and
`
`a control circuit (37 in Figure 8) that extracts an original signal of the light
`
`received by the light receiver,
`
`But, Murayama et al does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit
`
`obtains a recognition part from the original signal, and obtains a CRC part arranged
`
`immediately prior to the obtained recognition part from the original signal as a signal for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`identifying the visible light communication device; and in the recognition part, a time-
`
`series pattern including a bright state where the light source emits the visible light and a
`
`dark state where the light source does not emit the visible light has a pattern not
`
`complying with lnverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM) coding rule of CP-
`
`1223 standard.
`
`Regarding the recognition part, however, to put an additional part at the end of a
`
`frame is well known in the art, e.g., Balasubramanian et al discloses an optical
`
`communication system/method, in which a closing flag (CF in Figure 4) is used to
`
`indicate the end of frame; and the closing flag is arranged immediately subsequent to
`
`the CRC part; and the CF part has a time-series pattern including a bright state (“1” in
`
`the binary “01111110” ofthe closing flag in Figure 4) where the light source emits the
`
`light and a dark state (“0” in the binary “01111110” ofthe closing flag in Figure 4) where
`
`the light source does not emit the light has a pattern not complying with lnverted 4-ary
`
`Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM) coding rule of CP-1223 standard (refer to 112
`
`rejection above. Balasubramanian: “01111110” binary is not complying with 4PPM
`
`coding rule of CP-1223 standard. Column 4 lines 10-27, the modulation schemes used
`
`by Balasubramanian are: ASK, NRZI etc., but not the 4PPM. And more,
`
`Balasubramanian does not state that the “0111” is used to encode two message bits
`
`(e.g., “00” etc.). The flag of the form 01111110 is commonly known as High-Level Data
`
`Link Control (HDLC) flag, which is a data link protocol that uses a unique bit sequence
`
`to delimit the start and end of each packet data unit transported by the data link layer
`
`service. In HDLC, frames are delimited by a sequence of bits known as a "flag"; and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`HDLC is based on IBM's SDLC protocol, which is the layer 2 protocol for IBM's Systems
`
`Network Architecture (SNA). Note: IBM is the assignee of reference Balasubramanian
`
`patent. That is, the CF is not encoded according to a PPM or I-PPM coding rule).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a recognition part or closing flag at
`
`the end of a frame as taught by Balasubramanian et al to the system of Murayama et al
`
`so that the receiver can easily recognize the end of the frame, and also easily and
`
`conveniently recognize the CRC part that is immediately ahead of the closing flag.
`
`Regarding CRC as a signal for identifying the visible light communication device,
`
`Knapp et al discloses an visible light communication and “[b]y programming a unique
`
`manufacturer ID into each controlled device and using such ID as a seed for the CRC
`
`checksum, only messages sent by applications that use the same ID as the CRC
`
`checksum seed will be accepted” ([0044]). That is, from the CRC the ID can be obtained
`
`since the ID is the seed for the CRC checksum.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Knapp et al to the
`
`system/method of Murayama et al and Balasubramanian et al so that the receiver can
`
`use the CRC to identify the visible light communication device to reduce the process
`
`time.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Murayama et al (US 2013/0343762) in view of Freitas et al (US 5,321,542) and
`
`Hermann (US 2008/0231434).
`
`1). With regard to claim 1, Murayama et al discloses a visible light
`
`communication device (Figures 1, 2, 5 and 6 etc.) comprising:
`
`a light source unit (2/3 in Figures 2-5) configured to emit visible light for visible
`
`light communication; and
`
`a control circuit (10/11/5 in Figures 5 and 6) that generates an original signal of
`
`the light to be emitted by the light source unit,
`
`wherein the control circuit generates the original signal that includes a payload
`
`part (e.g., the ID information and Additional information in Figure 7), a Cyclic
`
`Redundancy Check (CRC) part (the CRC in Figure 7), the payload part including
`
`identification information (the ID information in Figure 7) identifying the visible light
`
`communication device, the CRC part being determined according to data indicated in
`
`the payload part (basic feature of the CRC).
`
`But, Murayama et al does not expressly disclose a recognition part, and in the
`
`recognition part, a time-series pattern including a bright state where the light source
`
`emits the visible light and a dark state where the light source does not emit the visible
`
`light has a pattern not complying with lnverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM)
`
`coding rule of CP-1223 standard.
`
`However, to put an additional part at the end of a frame is well known in the art,
`
`e.g., Freitas et al discloses an optical communication system/method (Figures 1-4), in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`which a trailer field (48g in in Figure 4) is used to indicate the end of frame; and the
`
`trailer field is arranged immediately subsequent to the CRC part; and the trailer field has
`
`a time-series pattern including a bright state (column 5 line 25, on-off pulsing, the “on”
`
`state) where the light source emits the light and a dark state (column 5 line 25 and 37,
`
`on-off pulsing, the “off’ state) where the light source does not emit the light has a
`
`pattern not complying with Inverted 4-ary Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM) coding
`
`rule of CP-1223 standard (Freitas does not state that the trailer is complying with a 4-
`
`PPM or l-4PPM. It is obvious the time-series pattern of the trailer part can have a
`
`pattern not complying l-4PPM coding rule of CP-1223 standard).
`
`Also, although Freitas et al doesn’t specifically disclose the time-series pattern of
`
`the trailer part can have a pattern not complying l-4PPM coding rule of CP-1223
`
`standard, such limitation are merely a matter of design choice and would have been
`
`obvious in the system of Murayama and Freitas. Freitas teaches that upon sensing the
`
`trailer field, the end of the frame is detected or reached. The limitations in claim 1 do
`
`not define a patentably distinct invention over that in Murayama and Freitas since both
`
`the invention as a whole and Murayama and Freitas are directed to use a recognition
`
`part to recognize the end of the frame and a CRC part arranged immediately prior to the
`
`recognition part. The exact pattern of the trailer field is inconsequential for the invention
`
`as a whole and presents no new or unexpected results, so long as the trailer (or
`
`recognition) part is successfully detected. Therefore, to have a pattern not complying
`
`with l-4PPM) coding rule of CP-1223 standard would have been a matter of obvious
`
`design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`And more, another prior art, Hermann, discloses that a frame can have a
`
`recognition part (e.g., Figure 8, the EOF, or the combination of ACK ad EOF), which
`
`may have 7 bits (EOF) or 9 bits (ACK+EOF), which is not complying with Inverted 4-ary
`
`Pulse Position Modulation (l-4PPM) coding rule of CP-1223 standard.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a recognition part or closing flag at
`
`the end of a frame as taught by Freitas et al and Hermann to the system of Murayama
`
`et al so that the receiver can easily recognize the end of the frame, and also easily and
`
`conveniently recognize the CRC part that is immediately ahead of the closing flag.
`
`2). With regard to claim 2, Murayama et al and Freitas et al and Hermann
`
`disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. But, Murayama et al and
`
`Freitas et al and Hermann do not expressly disclose wherein the recognition part is
`
`shorter than a preamble part arranged immediately prior to the payload part.
`
`Freitas et al does not expressly indicate the lengths the preamble and the trailer
`
`field. However, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the recognition part can be set
`
`to be shorter than a preamble part. It is merely a matter of design choice to set the
`
`lengths of the recognition part and the preamble part.
`
`3). With regard to claim 3, Murayama et al and Freitas et al and Hermann
`
`disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. But, Murayama et al and
`
`Freitas et al and Hermann do not expressly disclose wherein the recognition part has a
`
`predetermined fixed signal pattern binary.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2636
`
`However, since the recognition part (or trailer field) is just used for recognizing
`
`the end of the frame, it is not used for transmitting data signal, it is obvious to one
`
`skilled in the art to make the recognition part (or trailer field) to have a predetermined
`
`fixed signal pattern binary so that the receiver (or user) can easily and conveniently
`
`recognize/discriminate the trailer part.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama
`
`et al and Freitas et al and Hermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Knapp et al (US 2013/0183042).
`
`Murayama et al and Freitas et al and Hermann disclose all of the subject matter
`
`as applied to claim 1 above. And the combination of Murayama et al and Freitas et al
`
`and Hermann further discloses wherein the recognition part is a signal that enables a
`
`receiving device receiving the light to find the CRC part arranged immediately prior to
`
`the recognition part (Freitas et al and Hermann: the CRC part is arranged immediately
`
`prior to the trailer field. Since the trailer field is the last field, when the trailer field is
`
`received, the receiver knows the field before the trailer field is the CRC. That is, the
`
`trailer fieldm a receiving device receiving the light to find the CRC part).
`
`But, Murayama et al does not expressly disclose receiving device receiving the
`
`light to identify the visible light communication device by using the CRC part.
`
`However, Knapp et al discloses an visible light communication and “[b]y
`
`programming a unique manufacturer ID into each controlled device and using such ID
`
`as a seed for the CRC checksum, only messages sent by applications that use the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/829,693
`
`Page 18
`