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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 30, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action, with one exception outlined below.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6, applicant has not amended the claim in accordance with examiner’s suggestion, and has not provided any reason that the rejection is invalid, so therefore, the rejection of claim 6 remains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see pages 5-7, that first, the combination of previously presented prior art reference Liu et al. (Patent Number CN 203,632,748 U), hereafter referred to as Liu, with previously presented prior art reference Rijssemus (Patent Publication Number GB 2,549,375 A), hereafter referred to as Rijssemus, renders Liu as inoperable for its fundamental principle of operation, and that the combination of Liu with Rijssemus fails to teach “a microstrip directional coupler is disposed in the output path”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s first argument, examiner notes that applicant has not provided any reasoning to support this assertion that the combination of Liu with Rijssemus renders Liu as inoperable for its fundamental principle of operation. Instead, applicant merely asserts that the combination of Liu with Rijssemus would not result in the claimed invention, which is an entirely different problem, and therefore, has no bearing on the alleged invalidity of the combination. Therefore, this argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding applicant’s second argument, the applicant appears to be misinterpreting the claim mapping provided by the examiner. As described in the instant specification, the claimed output path refers to circuit elements coupled to the output of the bidirectional amplifier comprising elements 16, 18, 20, and 20’ of Fig. 2 of the instant application, and not to circuit elements coupled to the output of amplifier 36 of Fig. 2 of the instant application (which is analogous to the amplifier in Liu). In the circuit of Fig. 3 of Rijssemus, the bidirectional amplifier comprising elements 24, 30, 44, and 24’ is analogous to the bidirectional amplifier of the instant specification. Therefore, elements coupled to the output of this bidirectional amplifier are part of the claimed output path. As microstrip directional coupler 54 is coupled to the output of the bidirectional amplifier, Rijssemus does disclose “a microstrip directional coupler is disposed in the output path”.
Furthermore, if applicant’s usage of the claim term “output path” were utilized, as referring to circuit elements coupled to the output of the amplifier of Liu (which is analogous to the amplifier 36 of Fig. 2 of the instant application) the instant specification would fail to provide support for this interpretation, as the microstrip directional coupler of Fig. 2 of the instant application is not coupled to the output of amplifier 36, and is instead coupled to its input. Therefore, it is unreasonable to interpret the claim language as suggested by the applicant. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unconvincing, and the rejections of claims 1-7 are maintained.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation “the device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the cable network device” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rijssemus.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses:
A cable network device (Liu, Fig. 1) comprising an output path (Fig. 1, see path between input 1 and output 6) connected to at least one output (Fig. 1, see output 6) and a test port (Fig. 1, 51) associated with the at least one output (Fig. 1, see connection between 51 and 6), and an amplifier element (Fig. 1, 5) and at least one equalizer (Fig. 1, 4) are disposed between the coupling port and the test port (Fig. 1, see connection between coupling port 1 and test port 51 via equalizer 4 and amplifier 5), but fails to disclose wherein a microstrip directional coupler is disposed in the output path with a coupling port of the microstrip directional coupler connected to the test port.
However, Rijssemus teaches wherein a microstrip directional coupler (Rijssemus, Fig. 3, 54) is disposed in the output path (Fig. 3, see connection between 54 and output 16) with a coupling port of the microstrip directional coupler connected to the test port (Fig. 3, see connection between coupling port 84 of microstrip directional coupler 54 and output 16, and consider output 16 coupled to input 1 of Liu, Fig. 1, with connection between coupling port 1 and test port 51 of Liu, Fig. 1).
Liu and Rijssemus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving cable network devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Rijssemus to include the microstrip directional coupler of Rijssemus in the circuit of Liu, which would have the effect of optimizing cable loss compensation for the cable network of Liu (Rijssemus, Page 2, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further discloses:
wherein the at least one equalizer is disposed between the coupling port and the test port (Liu, Fig. 1, see connection between coupling port 1 and test port 51 via equalizer 4).
Regarding claim 5, Liu fails to disclose:
wherein the output is connected to the output port of the microstrip directional coupler.
However, Rijssemus further teaches wherein the output is connected to the output port of the microstrip directional coupler (Rijssemus, Fig. 3, see connection between microstrip directional coupler 54 and output port 16, and consider input port 1 of Liu coupled to output port 6, with output port 6 of Liu coupled to output port 16 of Rijssemus via the circuit of Liu.
Liu and Rijssemus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving cable network devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Rijssemus to include the microstrip directional coupler of Rijssemus in the circuit of Liu, which would have the effect of optimizing cable loss compensation for the cable network of Liu (Rijssemus, Page 2, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further discloses:
wherein the device is an active device requiring electrical power to operate (Liu, Paragraph 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Liu fails to disclose:
when configured for signals complying with a high frequency spectrum of 1.8 GHz and above.
However, Rijssemus further teaches when configured for signals complying with a high frequency spectrum of 1.8 GHz and above (Rijssemus, Page 2, lines 14-17).
Liu and Rijssemus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving cable network devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Rijssemus to use the frequency spectrum of Rijssemus for the device of Liu, which would have the effect of enabling conversion between user and network signals (Rijssemus, Page 2, lines 14-17).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rijssemus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomomitsu et al. (Patent Number JP 3,843,841 B2), hereafter referred to as Tomomitsu.
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Rijssemus fail to disclose:
wherein the at least one equalizer is disposed between the amplifier element and the test port.
However, Tomomitsu teaches wherein the at least one equalizer is disposed between the amplifier element and the test port (Tomomitsu, Fig. 1, see connection between amplifier 30R and test port 18R via equalizer 34R).
Liu, Rijssemus, and Tomomitsu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tomomitsu to include the equalizer of Tomomitsu in the circuit of Liu, which would have the effect of enabling control over the gain of the circuit of Liu (Tomomitsu, Paragraph 12, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses:
and a second equalizer (Liu, Fig. 1, 4) disposed between the coupling port and the test port (Fig. 1, see connection between coupling port 1 and test port 51 via equalizer 4), but fails to disclose wherein two equalizers are provided, a first equalizer disposed between the amplifier element and the test port.
However, Tomomitsu teaches wherein two equalizers are provided (consider equalizer 4 of Liu, Fig. 1 as one equalizer, and equalizer 34R of Tomomitsu, Fig. 1 as the second equalizer), a first equalizer (Tomomitsu, Fig. 1, 34R) disposed between the amplifier element and the test port (Fig. 1, see connection between amplifier 30R and test port 18R via equalizer 34R).
Liu, Rijssemus, and Tomomitsu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tomomitsu to include the equalizer of Tomomitsu in the circuit of Liu, which would have the effect of enabling control over the gain of the circuit of Liu (Tomomitsu, Paragraph 12, lines 1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinamon et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2019/0036588 A1) discloses a cable network device with a 1.8 GHz frequency band.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights