DETAILED ACTION
I. This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on January 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
II. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
III. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 25, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on January 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
IV. Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “communicate at least one of the unique identifier” in lines 10-11. It is unclear what unique identifier the limitation is referring to because the claim does not earlier recite a unique identifier. The limitation renders the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the following quotation from claim 8, “communicate at least one of the unique identifier” as
“communicate at least one of a unique identifier”.
Claims 9-16 are dependent on claim 8 and rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 8.
The following prior art rejection is based on the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
V. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ukkadam teaches a method for using a headend unit to establish a communication to a remote user equipment (see paragraphs [0095] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the use device to the set-top cell. The set-top cell sends a request to a cable provider headend for verification of user device authorization based on the information received. The cable provider headend checks the authorization of the user device. If authorization is verified the cable provider headend sends the set-top cell an indication that the user device is authorized. The user device is then able to access media content available from the cable provider headend. This reads on using a headend unit to establish a communication to a remote user equipment), the method comprising: in response to a connection being established between a headend unit (e.g. 310, Fig. 3), which is located remotely from a user equipment (e.g. 334, Fig. 3), and a radio frequency (RF) module (e.g. STC 332, Fig. 3) that has a unique identifier, communicating the unique identifier to a network manager (e.g. 318, Fig. 3) to authenticate the RF module (see paragraphs [0095] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the user device to the set-top cell (STC). The information includes a unique identifier and the information is sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell sends a request including the unique identifier to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier received. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. This reads on in response to a connection being established between a headend unit which is located remotely from a user equipment and a radio frequency (RF) module that has a unique identifier, communicating the unique identifier to a network manager); and in response to a user authentication being successful, using the RF module to establish a communication between the user equipment and the headend unit (see paragraphs [0059] & [0095] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the user device to the set-top cell (STC). A unique identifier is included in the information sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell sends the unique identifier to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. If authorization is verified the cable provider headend sends the set-top cell an indication that the user device is authorized. The user device is then able to access media content available from the media content sources (314, Fig. 3) located at the cable provider headend (see paragraph [0059]). This reads on in response to a user authentication being successful, using the RF module to establish a communication between the user equipment and the headend unit).
Ukkadam does not teach the connection being a physical connection being established between a headend unit, which is located remotely from a user equipment, and a radio frequency (RF) module.
Brockmann teaches a connection being a physical connection being established between a headend unit, which is located remotely from a user equipment, and a radio frequency (RF) module (see paragraph [0053] and Fig. 1, Various devices are connected to an operator headend. A house is connected to the headend through a cable gateway. This indicates a physical connection via a coaxial cable and reads on a connection being a physical connection being established between a headend unit, which is located remotely from a user equipment, and a radio frequency (RF) module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connection in Ukkadam adapt to include being a physical connection established between a headend unit, which is located remotely from a user equipment, and a radio frequency (RF) module because it would allow for a flexible and user friendly communication with the headend.
Regarding claim 2 Ukkadam teaches wherein the user authentication is performed by at least one of the user equipment, the RF module, or the network manager (see paragraphs [0097] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the user device to the set-top cell (STC). A unique identifier is included in the information sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device, and sends a request to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier received. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. This reads on wherein the user authentication is performed by at least one of the user equipment, the RF module, or the network manager).
Regarding claim 3 Ukkadam teaches wherein the user authentication by the network manager comprises receiving, at the network manager, authentication information that has been obtained, at the RF module (see paragraphs [0097] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the user device to the set-top cell (STC). A unique identifier is included in the information sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device, and sends a request to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier received. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device by performing the authorization check by matching the unique identification information received to a profile located in an authorized user device database. This reads on wherein the user authentication by the network manager comprises receiving, at the network manager, authentication information that has been obtained, at the RF module).
Regarding claim 6 Brockmann teaches using the headend unit to detect the physical connection (see paragraphs [0053] & [0056], A headend is connected to a house through a cable gateway. The device forms a data connection to the headend and requests a particular service. This indicates that the physical connection is detected and reads on using the headend unit to detect the physical connection).
Regarding claim 8 Ukkadam teaches a radio frequency (RF) tuner (e.g. STC 332, Fig. 3) configured to communicate with a wireless user equipment (e.g. 334, Fig.3) (see paragraph [0094] and Fig. 3, The set-top cell (STC) may detect a user device in response to receiving a request for streaming media content sent to the STC by the user device. This reads on a radio frequency (RF) tuner configured to communicate with a wireless user equipment), the RF tuner (set-top cell (STC)) comprising: an antenna (170, Fig. 1) that receives a radio wave from a user equipment (see paragraph [0094] and Fig. 3, The set-top cell (STC) may detect a user device in response to receiving a request for streaming media content sent to the STC by the user device. This reads on the RF tuner comprising: an antenna that receives a radio wave from a user equipment); an RF transceiver that, in response to receiving the radio wave, generates an RF signal (see paragraphs [0095] – [0096] and Fig. 1, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the use device to the set-top cell. The information includes unique identifier of the user device. The set-top cell sends a request to a cable provider headend for verification of user device based on the unique identifier information received. This reads on an RF transceiver that, in response to receiving the radio wave, generates an RF signal); a wireline interface (160, Fig. 1) coupled to the RF transceiver, the wireline interface, in response to receiving the RF signals outputs a wireline signal (see paragraph [0036], The set-top cell may communicate with user devices via wired communication circuitry 160. The wired communications circuitry may be used to present media content a user device, receive commands form the user device, send commands to the user device and perform other suitable communications. This reads on a wireline interface coupled to the RF transceiver, the wireline interface, in response to receiving the RF signals outputs a wireline signal); and communicate at least one of a unique identifier, the wireline signal, or a control signal to a network manager or a wireless transceiver, which enables a communication between the user equipment and the headend unit (see paragraphs [0095] – [0098] and Fig. 3, A unique identifier is included in the information sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell sends the unique identifier to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. If authorization is verified the cable provider headend sends the set-top cell an indication that the user device is authorized. The user device is then able to access media content available from the media content sources (314, Fig. 3) located at the cable provider headend (see paragraph [0059]). This reads on communicate at least one of a unique identifier, the wireline signal, or a control signal to a network manager or a wireless transceiver, which enables a communication between the user equipment and the headend unit).
Ukkadam does not teach a connector that is removably coupled to a cable to establish a physical connection between the RF tuner and a headend unit that is located remotely from the RF tuner, the physical connection configured to communicate.
Brockmann teaches a connector that is removably coupled to a cable to establish a physical connection between the RF tuner and a headend unit that is located remotely from the RF tuner, the physical connection configured to communicate (see paragraph [0053] and Fig. 1, Various devices are connected to an operator headend. A house is connected to the headend through a cable gateway. This indicates a physical connection via a coaxial cable and reads on a connector that is removably coupled to a cable to establish a physical connection between the RF tuner and a headend unit that is located remotely from the RF tuner, the physical connection configured to communicate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the communication of at least one of a unique identifier, the wireline signal, or a control signal to a network manager or a wireless transceiver, which enables a communication between the user equipment and the headend unit in Ukkadam adapt to include a connector that is removably coupled to a cable to establish a physical connection between the RF tuner and a headend unit that is located remotely from the RF tuner, the physical connection configured to communicate because it would allow for a flexible and user friendly communication with the headend.
Regarding claim 9 Ukkadam teaches wherein the network manager uses the unique identifier to authenticate the RF tuner prior to enabling the communication (see paragraphs [0097] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the use device to the set-top cell. The information includes a unique identifier of the mobile device. The set-top cell sends a request to a cable provider headend for verification of user device authorization based on the unique identifier information received. The cable provider headend checks the authorization of the user device. If authorization is verified the cable provider headend sends the set-top cell an indication that the user device is authorized. The user device is then able to access media content available from the cable provider headend. This reads on wherein the network manager uses the unique identifier to authenticate the RF tuner prior to enabling the communication).
VI. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1) and Parla et al. (US 2024/0146718 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Ukkadam and Brockmann teaches the method of claim 1 except for at least partially encrypting the communication, the physical connection being a wired LAN connection.
Parla teaches at least partially encrypting the communication (see paragraph [0013], encrypted communication session reads on at least partially encrypting the communication), the physical connection being a wired LAN connection (see paragraph [0065], network interfaces configured to couple to wired LANs reads on the physical connection being a wired LAN connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include at least partially encrypting the communication, the physical connection being a wired LAN connection because the encryption would allow for secure communications and it is well known that wired LANs provide communication/connection for/between devices.
Regarding claim 5 Ukkadam and Brockmann teaches the method of claim 1 including wherein, in response to an access control server (e.g. access control center) granting access to a user to an access controller area (media sources), providing media (see Ukkadam, paragraphs [0097] – [0098], The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. If authorization is verified the cable provider headend sends the set-top cell an indication that the user device is authorized. The user device is then able to access media content available from the media content sources (314, Fig. 3) located at the cable provider headend (see paragraph [0059]). This reads on wherein, in response to an access control server granting access to a user to an access controller area, providing media) and except for in response to granting access the headend unit enters a standby mode.
Parla teaches in response to granting access the headend unit enters a standby mode (see claim 1 and claim 9, A secure communication session is established between a device and the headend appliance to provide access to a resource. Subsequent to establishing the secure communication session between the device and the headend appliance, causing the secure communication session to enter a standby state. This reads on response to granting access the headend unit enters a standby mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include in response to granting access the headend unit enters a standby mode because it provide for a more efficient use of resources by allowing the headend appliance to be less constrained for a computing resource.
VII. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1) and Grzeskowiak (US 2018/0309498 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Ukkadam and Brockmann teach the method of claim 1 except for receiving, at an IF port of the RF tuner, a signal from another RF tuner and combining that signal with the IF signal.
Grzeskowiak teaches receiving, at an IF port of the RF tuner, a signal from another RF tuner and combining that signal with the IF signal (see abstract; paragraph [0008]; and Fig. 2, Two tuners 3A, 3B produce two intermediate-frequency signals. A combiner combines the two intermediate-frequency signals to form a single signal. This reads on receiving, at an IF port of the RF tuner, a signal from another RF tuner and combining that signal with the IF signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include receiving, at an IF port of the RF tuner, a signal from another RF tuner and combining that signal with the IF signal because signal combining is well-known in the art during signal processing.
Regarding claim 16 Ukkadam and Brockmann teach the RF tuner module of claim 8 including a wireline interface (see Ukkadam, paragraph [0036] and Fig. 1, The wired communication circuitry reads on a wireline interface) and except for an IF port coupled to generate a combined IF signal that is provided to the headend unit.
Grzeskowiak teaches an IF port to generate a combined IF signal that is provided to the headend unit (see abstract; paragraph [0008]; and Fig. 2, Two tuners 3A, 3B produce two intermediate-frequency signals. A combiner combines the two intermediate-frequency signals to form a single signal. This reads on an IF port to generate a combined IF signal that is provided to the headend unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include an IF port coupled to generate a combined IF signal that is provided to the headend unit because signal combining is well-known in the art during signal processing.
VIII. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1) and Kahn et al. (US 7,950,243 B2).
Regarding claim 10 Ukkadam and Brockmann teach the RF tuner of claim 8 except for an integrated in an RF module that further comprises an authentication module that, in response to receiving authentication information, performs an authentication operation to authenticate the user.
Kahn teaches an integrated in an RF module that further comprises an authentication module that, in response to receiving authentication information, performs an authentication operation to authenticate the user (see col. 9, lines 28-30 claim 15 and Fig. 4, A set-top box (STB) is configured to receive an authorization key. A decryption algorithm on the STB is configured to decrypt the to enable the ability to provide and process content to a user device (see col. 9, lines 28-30). This reads on an integrated in an RF module that further comprises an authentication module that, in response to receiving authentication information, performs an authentication operation to authenticate the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include an integrated in an RF module that further comprises an authentication module that, in response to receiving authentication information, performs an authentication operation to authenticate the user because a flexible and efficient mechanism for authorizing/deauthorizing a user (see Kahn, col. 1, lines 25-29 & 36-40).
Regarding claim 11 Ukkadam teaches communicating the authentication information to the network manager (see paragraphs [0097] – [0098], The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell sends the unique identifier to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier. The cable provider headend uses an access control center to check the authorization of the user device. This reads on communicating the authentication information to the network manager).
Regarding claim 12 Ukkadam teaches wherein the authentication information is generated by the user equipment (see paragraphs [0095] – [0098] and Fig. 3, Information needed for authorization verification is sent from the user device to the set-top cell (STC). The information includes a unique identifier and the information is sent to the set-top cell for authorization verification. The set-top cell has the unique identifier from the user device. The set-top cell sends a request including the unique identifier to a cable provider headend for verification of the user device based on the unique identifier received. This reads on wherein the authentication information is generated by the user equipment).
Regarding claim 13 Ukkadam teaches wherein the authentication information comprises at least one of a biometric ID, a password, a passcode, a fingerprint ID, or a facial ID (see paragraph [0053], A password entered into a password field may be required as security check each time a connection is initiated between a user device and set top cell. This reads on wherein the authentication information comprises at least one of a biometric ID, a password, a passcode, a fingerprint ID, or a facial ID).
IX. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1) and Wheelock (US 2022/0103892 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Ukkadam and Brockmann teach the RF tuner of claim 8 except for an Ethernet transceiver that, at an Ethernet port, exchanges Ethernet packets with an Ethernet device.
Wheelock teaches an Ethernet transceiver that, at an Ethernet port, exchanges Ethernet packets with an Ethernet device (see paragraphs [0037] claim 23, One or more Ethernet ports receive transport streams. The one or more ethernet ports communicate with a set top box using Ethernet protocols. This reads on Ethernet transceiver that, at an Ethernet port, exchanges Ethernet packets with an Ethernet device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include an Ethernet transceiver that, at an Ethernet port, exchanges Ethernet packets with an Ethernet device because Ethernet communication protocol is very well-known in the art to be used various communication environments.
X. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukkadam (US 2011/0281517 A1) in view of Brockmann et al. (US 2013/0272394 A1) and Francisco et al (US 2018/0152308 A1).
Regarding claim 15 Ukkadam and Brockmann teach the RF tuner of claim 8 except for a Wi-Fi transceiver coupled to the Ethernet transceiver and the RF transceiver, wherein the Wi-Fi transceiver converts the Ethernet packets into a Wi-Fi signal or vice versa.
Francisco teaches a Wi-Fi transceiver coupled to the Ethernet transceiver and the RF transceiver, wherein the Wi-Fi transceiver converts the Ethernet packets into a Wi-Fi signal or vice versa (see paragraphs [0025] & [0047] and Fig. 1, A gateway 111 may include local network interfaces to provide communication signals to devices in the premises. Examples of local network interfaces include Ethernet interfaces and wireless interfaces such as IEEE 802.11. Data received/transmitted may be encapsulated according to a second format. Data at a Wi-Fi interface may be converted to be compatible with an Ethernet based IP network. This reads on a Wi-Fi transceiver coupled to the Ethernet transceiver and the RF transceiver, wherein the Wi-Fi transceiver converts the Ethernet packets into a Wi-Fi signal or vice versa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Ukkadam and Brockmann combination adapt to include a Wi-Fi transceiver coupled to the Ethernet transceiver and the RF transceiver, wherein the Wi-Fi transceiver converts the Ethernet packets into a Wi-Fi signal or vice versa because Ethernet/Wi-Fi communication protocols are very well-known in the art to be used various communication environments (see Francisco, paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
XI. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lechner et al. Pub. No.: US 2014/0172966 A1 discloses shared scheduling for delivery systems including a user device for receiving content from headend systems via a particular channel, wherein the headend system may provide the use device with a particular content file (see paragraphs [0057] & [0058]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/BRANDON J MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights