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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 and 22-31, in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 29-31 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 29 recites the limitation "the second-direction amplification and filtering path". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first-direction gain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the second-direction received signal strength indicator (RSSI)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and is therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the first-direction signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the second-direction signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 4 does not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. Claim 5 is rejected based on its dependence on claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to a machine readable storage medium which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover an ineligible signal per se. Additionally, nothing within Applicant’s disclosure limits the claimed machine readable storage medium to only non-transitory embodiments. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-10, 22-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solid Inc KR20160076331A (hereinafter Solid Inc; machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Solid Inc teaches a repeater (see paragraph 0033, figure 1), comprising: a first antenna port configured to be coupled to a first antenna (see figure 1, 112); a second antenna port configured to be coupled to a second antenna (see figure 1, 162); one or more first direction amplification and filtering paths coupled between the first antenna port and the second antenna port (see figure 1, 110-130-150 and paragraph 0042; see figure 2 and paragraph 0051); one or more second direction amplification and filtering paths coupled between the first antenna port and the second antenna port (see figure 1, 150-170 and paragraph 0046; see figure 3 and paragraph 0062); and a controller configured to switch the repeater (see figure 1, 140 and paragraph 0040) between: a radio frequency (RF) mode, wherein the repeater is configured to send a first-direction RF mode RF signal to the second antenna port or receive a second- direction RF signal at the second antenna port (see figure 1, switch a-c and switch a'-c', see paragraphs 0035, 0040, 0045), and a fiber optic mode wherein the repeater is configured to send a first- direction fiber optic mode RF signal to a fiber-optic RF path or receive a second- direction fiber optic mode RF signal at the fiber-optic RF path (see figure 1, switch b-c and switch b'-c', see paragraph 0036, 0039, 0045).
Regarding Claim 9, Solid Inc teaches the repeater of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to receive or send instructions at the repeater (see paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 10, Solid Inc teaches the repeater of claim 9, wherein the repeater is configured to send a first direction signal to the fiber optic RF path for conversion from an RF signal to a fiber optic signal, and wherein the repeater is configured to receive a second-direction signal at the fiber optic RF path after conversion from the fiber optic signal to the RF signal (via optical transceiver 120, see figure 1, see paragraph 0036, 0037).
Regarding Claim 22, claim 22 is drawn to a machine readable storage medium for executing operations of a repeater the same as claimed in claim 1. As such, the limitations of claim 22 correspond to limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as stated above. See also, Solid Inc paragraph 0030.
Regarding Claim 23, Solid Inc teaches the machine readable storage medium of claim 22, further comprising instructions that when executed: deactivating, at the repeater, a first-direction RF amplification and filtering path when the fiber optic mode has been identified; and activating, at the repeater, a first-direction fiber-optic RF path when the fiber optic mode has been identified (see figure 1, switch b-c and switch b'-c', see paragraph 0036, 0039, 0045).
Regarding Claim 25, Solid Inc teaches the machine readable storage medium of claim 22, further comprising instructions that when executed: deactivating, at the repeater, a second-direction RF amplification and filtering path when the fiber optic mode has been identified; and activating, at the repeater, a second-direction fiber-optic RF path when the fiber optic mode has been identified (see figure 1, switch b-c and switch b'-c', see paragraph 0036, 0039, 0045).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solid Inc.
Regarding Claim 11, Solid Inc teaches the repeater of claim 10.
Solid Inc does not explicitly teach wherein the RF signal and the fiber optic signal are analog signals. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is extremely well-known for RF signals and the fiber optic signals to be analog signals, the two options for such signals being analog or digital. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solid Inc such that the RF signal and the fiber optic signal are analog signals.
Regarding Claim 12, Solid Inc teaches the repeater of claim 1.
Solid Inc does not explicitly teach wherein the repeater is configured to operate in accordance with regulations promulgated by a regulatory body when operating in the RF mode and when operating in the fiber optic mode. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is extremely well-known for RF and fiber optic communication devices to operate in accordance with regulations set by regulatory bodies such as the CCSDS, the IEEE, the ITU, the FCC, and the NIST. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solid Inc such that the repeater is configured to operate in accordance with regulations promulgated by a regulatory body when operating in the RF mode and when operating in the fiber optic mode.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solid Inc in view of Badesha et al. US 2002/0167702 A1 (hereinafter Badesha).
Regarding Claim 2, Solid Inc teaches the repeater of claim 1, wherein the repeater is further configured to: send the first-direction RF mode RF signal to the second antenna port at a first power level or first gain (it is inherent that the RF mode signal is transmitted at some power level); and send the first-direction fiber optic mode RF signal to the fiber-optic RF path at a second power level or second gain (it is inherent that the fiber optic mode signal is transmitted at some power level).
Solid Inc does not teach wherein the second power level or second gain in the fiber optic mode is less than the first power level or first gain in the RF mode. However, Badesha teaches that optical communication systems require less power compared to RF communication systems (paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solid Inc such that the second power level or second gain in the fiber optic mode is less than the first power level or first gain in the RF mode, because optical communication systems require less power compared to RF communication systems.
Regarding Claim 3, Solid Inc as modified by Badesha teaches the repeater of claim 2, wherein: the second power level is less than the first power level (Badesha, paragraph 0005); or the first power level for an uplink direction does not exceed 1 watt composite conducted power and equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for each band of operation; or the first power level for a downlink direction does not exceed 0.05 watt (17 dBm) composite and 10 dBm per channel conducted and EIRP for each band of operation; or the second gain is less than the first gain by one or more of 50 dB, 45 dB, 40 dB, 35 dB, 30 dB, 25 dB, 20 dB, 15 dB, 10 dB, 5 dB, 3 dB, 1 dB, or a combination thereof; or the noise figure for the second power level is less than or about the same as the noise figure for the first power level; or the noise figure for the second gain is less than or about the same as the noise figure for the first gain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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 DAVID W LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-7692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10-6.
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 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.
/DAVID W LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights