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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants’ assertion-Applicant submits that none of these passages disclose (first and second) fiber connectors (with first and second positive and negative analog inputs ports), contrary to the requirement in claim 1. That is, there is no disclosure of "fiber" in either of the references and thus, the mention of "fiber" are those alleged by the Examiner, which are not supported by either reference.- Applicants claim language that details the claimed fiber connectors have defined said fiber connectors as entities that comprise or are made up of positive and negative analog input ports. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the fiber connector limitations renders any entity or device that is made up of or comprises positive and negative analog input ports. Wu, as detailed in the Office Action dated October 28, 2025, teaches such an entity or device therefore Wu teaches the claimed fiber connectors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ assertion that Stanley does not teach an SPI port and an I2C port. Stanley teaches a device that has dual port (SPI/I2C) functionality thus teaches an SPI port and an I2C port.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 2013/0085704) in view of Wu et al. (CN 213547852)
Regarding Claim 1, Stanley teaches a universal communication device, comprising: a connector including an analog input port (Figure 2, Section 0018, pin 230 is the analog input port); a serial peripheral interface (SPI) port (Figure 2, Section 0018, dual mode port I2C/SPI); an inter-integrated circuit (I2C) port (Figure 2, Section 0018, dual mode port I2C/SPI); a first output port (Figure 2, Section 0018, pins (234) is an input/output port); and a controller in electrical communication with the connector, the SPI port, the I2C port, and the first output port (Figure 2, Section 0018, Master Controller (210)).
Stanley does not teach a first fiber connector including a first positive analog input port and a first negative analog input port; a second fiber connector including a second positive analog input port and a second negative analog input port.
Stanley teaches the base process of a connector including an analog input port, which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in a first fiber connector including a first positive analog input port and a first negative analog input port; a second fiber connector including a second positive analog input port and a second negative analog input port.
Wu teaches the known technique a first fiber connector including a first positive analog input port and a first negative analog input port; a second fiber connector including a second positive analog input port and a second negative analog input port (Section 0052, the entities the include or comprise the first/second positive/negative analog input ports read on the first and second fiber connectors) that is applicable to the base process of Stanley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the art as applicable to the base process of Wu and the results would have been predictable and resulted in low power capability that reduces power consumption, which is an improved process.
Claim(s) 2 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 2013/0085704) in view of Wu et al. (CN 213547852), as applied to Claim 1 set forth above, and further in view of Mueck (US 2022/0038902)
Regarding Claim 2, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Stanley combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: receive a testing command from a central controller; receive sensor data in response to a sensor being triggered; and transmit the sensor data to the central controller.
Mueck, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches receive a testing command from a central controller (Section 0540, entity from which the commands of the test procedure are received reads on the central controller); receive sensor data in response to a sensor being triggered; and transmit the sensor data to the central controller (Section 0479, the sensor is activated or triggered based on a detected event, sensor data about said detected event is then transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Stanley combination with the above features of Mueck for the purpose of improving the protection of computer systems and networks from the theft of or damage to hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide as taught by Mueck.
Regarding Claim 3, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 2. Stanley combination does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a monitor command from the central controller; and monitor a sensor trigger pattern of the sensor in response to receiving the monitor command.
Mueck, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches receive a monitor command from the central controller; and monitor a sensor trigger pattern of the sensor in response to receiving the monitor command (Section 0479, the entity that receives the sensor data, which reads on the sensor trigger pattern, will monitor for said sensor data, there would also need to be some kind of prompting or initiating said entity to monitor for said sensor data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Stanley combination with the above features of Mueck for the purpose of improving the protection of computer systems and networks from the theft of or damage to hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide as taught by Mueck.
Regarding Claim 4, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 3. Stanley combination does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the sensor trigger pattern of the sensor to the central controller.
Mueck, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches transmit the sensor trigger pattern of the sensor to the central controller (Section 0479, an entity will receive the transmitted sensor data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Stanley combination with the above features of Mueck for the purpose of improving the protection of computer systems and networks from the theft of or damage to hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide as taught by Mueck.
Regarding Claim 5, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 4. Stanley combination does not teach wherein the universal communication device is configured to transmit the sensor trigger pattern through the first output port.
Mueck, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches wherein the universal communication device is configured to transmit the sensor trigger pattern through the first output port (Section 0479, sensor data sent by an infrared sensor renders a scenario wherein said sensor data is sent via wireless means and thus via a wireless output port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Stanley combination with the above features of Mueck for the purpose of improving the protection of computer systems and networks from the theft of or damage to hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide as taught by Mueck.
Regarding Claim 6, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Stanley combination does not teach wherein the first output port is a wireless output port.
Mueck, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches wherein the first output port is a wireless output port (Section 0479, sensor data sent by an infrared sensor renders a scenario wherein said sensor data is sent via wireless means and thus via a wireless output port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Stanley combination with the above features of Mueck for the purpose of improving the protection of computer systems and networks from the theft of or damage to hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of the services they provide as taught by Mueck.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 2013/0085704) in view of Wu et al. (CN 213547852) in view of Mueck (US 2022/0038902), as applied to Claim 6 set forth above, and further in view of Barlow et al. (US 2009/0150728)
Regarding Claim 7, Stanley combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 6. Stanley combination does not teach a second output port, the second output port comprising a serial output port.
Barlow, which also teaches JTAG testing, teaches an output port comprising a serial output port (Section 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Stanley combination with the above features of Barlow for the purpose of providing a high-speed serial trace process that operates in near real time for the purpose of debugging as taught by Barlow.
Conclusion
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 RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
March 10, 2026