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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes reference characters relating the features described in the abstract to the figures. The reference characters should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: On claim 7, line 1, insert a comma after the phrase “according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 are 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.
Claims 2-7 recite the limitation "A cable network device according to claim 1" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Amending the limitation to “The cable network device according to claim 1” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the device” in line 1. 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 et al. (Patent Number CN 203,632,748 U), hereafter referred to as Liu, in view of Rijssemus (Patent Publication Number GB 2,549,375 A), hereafter referred to as 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.
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