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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Sanden et al. (US 3271521) hereinafter Von Sanden in view of Downing et al. (US 3570008) hereinafter Downing.
Regarding claim 1,
Von Sanden teaches a subscriber line accommodation device (circuits; column 3, lines 59-62; Fig. 1) comprising: one or more processors (comprising decoders, cyclic stores, comparing devices, address registers, other devices; column 3, lines 59-68; Fig. 1, 3-6),connected to a plurality of line termination units (connected to a set of subscriber line circuit; column 2, lines 38-54; column 4, lines 61-63; Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the accommodation device includes a communication line for the plurality of line termination units to communicate a test signal with a time difference by a time division multiplex transmission method (the circuits include a multiplexing line YM for the subscriber line circuits, where YM is used to cause the appearance of a criteria based on a reading pulse P0, which may be a phase-shifted time division multiplexed pulse; column 4, lines 23-67), and a timing line for causing the plurality of line termination units to receive a communication timing of the test signal in the time division multiplex transmission method (decoders supplying control pulses, indicating the timing of a reading pulse P0 triggering switch Sy, causing the subscriber line circuits to cause the appearance of a criteria; column 4, lines 23-72; Figs. 1-3), and the test signal is communicated with at least one of the line termination units connected to a same communication line to test normality of the same communication line (the appearance of the criteria indicating operating conditions of the respective subscriber station of the stations connected to YM, including the operating state of YM; column 4, lines 23-67), and the communication timing is received by at least one of the line termination units connected to a same timing line to test normality of the same timing line (the reading pulse P0 is received by at least one subscriber line circuit connected to the decoder, indicating the operating state of the decoder; column 4, lines 23-72).
Von Sanden does not explicitly teach a mounting unit configured to mount a plurality of line termination units.
Downing teaches a mounting unit configured to mount a plurality of line termination units (trunk frame for mounting circuits connected to the lines; column 61, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Downing to the teachings of Von Sanden. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce loss in the quality of service (Downing; column 3, lines 6-28).
Regarding claim 3,
Von Sanden and Downing teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Von Sanden further teaches a set of the line termination units to which the same communication line is connected is arranged in one direction of the lattice shape (subscriber line circuits sharing the same multiplexing line YM arranged vertically; column 4, lines 57-63; Figs. 1 and 3), and a set of the line termination units to which the same timing line is connected is arranged in direction of the lattice shape (subscriber line circuits connected to the outputs of the same decoder arranged vertically; column 4, lines 68-75; column 5, lines 1-49 Figs. 1 and 3).
Von Sanden does not explicitly teach wherein an inside of the mounting unit is configured to allow the line termination units to be arranged in a lattice shape, and units being arranged in another direction of the lattice shape.
Downing teaches wherein an inside of the mounting unit is configured to allow the line termination units to be arranged in a lattice shape (trunk frame mounting a master scanner, where the scanner comprises a ferrod matrix for arranging subscriber circuits; column 14, lines 40-72; column 61, lines 1-19), and units being arranged in another direction of the lattice shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Downing to the teachings of Von Sanden. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce loss in the quality of service (Downing; column 3, lines 6-28).
Claim 4 “system” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “accommodation device”, where Von Sanden further teaches normality of a communication line is tested by looping back a received test signal using a loopback function of the line termination unit or a loopback function of a subscriber terminal accommodated in the line termination unit (subscriber station extending the reading pulse; column 4, lines 47-56).
Claim 5 “method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “accommodation device”.
Claim 6 “program” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “accommodation device”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Von Sanden and Downing teach the subscriber line accommodation device according to claim 1 as previously outlined.
Von Sanden further teaches wherein the device is configured to determine that the same communication line is normal in a case where normality of a predetermined line termination unit connected to the same communication line is confirmed (the devices determining, based on the appearance of a criteria, the operating conditions of the subscriber line circuit and the state of YM; column 4, lines 64-75; column 5, lines 1-64), and omit communication of a test signal by another line termination unit connected to the same communication line (the reading pulse causes the circuitry to open only when the intended subscriber line circuit pulse is to be read; column 4, lines 64-75; column 5, lines 1-64; column 10, lines 8-27).
However, neither Von Sanden nor Downing teach or suggest the following features: the mounting unit is configured to check normality of the other line termination unit by a test signal communicated by the other line termination unit connected to the same communication line in a case where an abnormality is confirmed in the predetermined line termination unit, and regard the same communication line as abnormal in a case where an abnormality is confirmed in the other line termination unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465