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 statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/7/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “repeater modules” and “repeater units” in claim 1. The corresponding structure for such “repeater modules” and “repeater units” appears to be recited in at least paragraph [0059] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim also recites “among the N repeater modules, M (M is an integer greater than or equal to 1 but less than N) repeater modules are repeater units that amplify a signal transmitted through the cable.” Such claim language appears to require that only some of the N repeater modules (i.e., those that are M repeater units) perform signal amplification. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a repeater to amplify a signal (e.g., such that it may be transmitted further). It is therefore unclear if such claim language is intended to imply that the “N repeater modules” that are not “M repeater units” do not perform any signal amplification. If the repeater modules that are not “repeater units that amplify a signal transmitted through the cable” are not intended to perform any signal amplification, it is unclear if such “repeater modules” are required to perform any sort of repeater function at all. If at least some of the N repeater modules do not perform repeater functionality, the label “repeater module” appears to be contrary to what a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a repeater to be. Furthermore, the claim also recites “among the N repeater modules, L (L is an integer equal to N-M) power units are power units that supply power for an operation of the repeater units.” However, it is unclear what effect the claim language “among the N repeater modules” is intended to have. For instance, it is unclear if such claim language is intended to imply that the L “power units” are “repeater modules” or if some other interpretation is intended. Claim 1 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim language as allowing for all of the “N repeater modules” to perform repeater functionality such as amplification. The Examiner will also interpret the “among the N repeater modules” as not explicitly requiring that the power units are repeater modules because such a requirement is not clearly stated. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a power line disposed within the cable passes through the N repeater modules without being connected to the connector.” However, the claim limitation “the connector” lacks antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. For instance, it is unclear if “the connector” is intended to be the same or different from “N connect pins.” Claim 3 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the connector” as being potentially the same or different from “N connect pins.” Regarding claims 4-5, 8, and 12, the claims recite “the repeater unit,” but claim 1 from which claim 12 depends appears to allow for more than one “repeater unit” with the claim language “wherein among the N repeater modules, M (M is an integer greater than or equal to 1 but less than N) repeater modules are repeater units.” It is therefore unclear if the singular term “the repeater unit” is intended to refer to only one “repeater unit” or to all “repeater units” when multiple “repeater units” are present. Claims 4-5, 8, and 12 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the repeater unit” as potentially referring to only one “repeater unit” or to all “repeater units” when multiple “repeater units” are present. Regarding claims 2-12, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Decrock et al. (US 2013/0002046, Decrock hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Decrock teaches a multi-faceted signal amplification repeater comprising: N (N is an integer of 3 or more) repeater modules (Embodiments are described wherein at least two repeaters are used, which may be interpreted as including three or more repeater modules; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]) surrounding a cable for signal transmission between a transmitting end and a receiving end (As can be seen in at least Figs. 1-2, the repeater may surround a cable for signal transmission between a transmitting end and a receiving end; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]); and N connect pins connecting the N repeater modules to each other (The repeaters are described as being comprised of pins that are connected at least to electrical conductors. The N repeater modules may thus be interpreted as being connected at least by N connect pins; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0029]-[0035], [0044]), wherein among the N repeater modules, M (M is an integer greater than or equal to 1 but less than N) repeater modules are repeater units that amplify a signal transmitted through the cable (As is discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, it is unclear if such claim language is intended to require that only the M repeater modules perform signal amplification. As is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner is interpreting all of the N repeater modules as potentially performing repeater functionality including signal amplification because they are described as repeater modules and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand repeaters to perform such signal amplification. The N repeater modules are described as performing signal amplification. Such N repeater modules may also be interpreted as being M repeater units that amplify a signal transmitted through the cable; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0005]-[0007], [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]), and among the N repeater modules, L (L is an integer equal to N-M) power units are power units that supply power for an operation of the repeater units (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2, at least a power line may provide electrical power for the repeaters. L power units may thus be interpreted as supplying power for an operation of the repeater units among the N repeater modules; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 2, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches a connector connecting at least one of the M repeater units and a communication line disposed in the cable to each other (As can be seen in at least Figs. 1-2, the repeater(s) may be connected to a communication line in the cable by a connector; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 3, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches a power line disposed within the cable passes through the N repeater modules without being connected to the connector (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2, at least a power line may provide electrical power for the repeaters. As can also be seen in at least Fig. 2, the power line connects to the repeater separately from the data lines 5, and thus the power line may be interpreted as not being connected to the connector; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 4, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches the power unit supplies power to the repeater unit using power used in the transmitting end or the receiving end (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2, at least a power line may supply power to the repeater unit. The power line may also be connected to at least one end (i.e., the transmitting end or the receiving end); Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 5, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 4. Decrock further teaches the power unit supplies power to the repeater unit through the connect pin (The printed circuit board 13 may comprise electrical conductors 14 which are connected to pins of the chip housing 12 and to endings of the data lines 5, 55 and the power line 7. The power unit may thus be interpreted as supplying power to the repeater unit through the connect pin; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 7, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches an insertion hole is formed by the N repeater modules arranged to surround the cable, and the cable is inserted into the insertion hole (The repeaters may be interpreted as having an insertion hole wherein at least the data lines enter the repeater such that the repeaters surround the cable; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 8, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches a size of the repeater unit is greater than a size of the power unit (The repeaters (e.g., repeater 4) depicted in at least Figs. 1-2 may be interpreted as being greater in size than the power unit (e.g., power line 7); Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 9, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches M is greater than or equal to L (Multiple repeaters (i.e., repeater units) may be interpreted as existing whereas only one power unit may be interpreted as existing. M may thus be interpreted as being greater than or equal to L; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 10, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches when N is 4 or more and M is 2 or more (More than two repeaters are described as being used, and thus N may be interpreted as being 4 or more and M may be interpreted as being 2 or more; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]), one of the M repeater units is arranged to face another one of the M repeater units (When multiple repeaters are used, one of the M repeater units may be interpreted as being arranged to face another one of the M repeater units; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 11, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches when N is 3 or more and L is 1 or more (Multiple repeaters (i.e., repeater modules) may be interpreted as existing whereas only one power unit may be interpreted as existing. N may thus be interpreted as being 3 or more and L may be interpreted as being 1 or more; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]), L power units are arranged so that the repeater units are located on both sides of the L power units (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2, a power line 7 may be connected to one side of each repeater and a power line 57 may be connected to the other side of each repeater. A power line (i.e., a power unit) may thus be interpreted as being located between at least two repeaters and thus power units may be interpreted as being arranged so that the repeater units are located on both sides of such power units; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]). Regarding claim 12, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. Decrock further teaches a distance between the repeater unit and the cable is less than a distance between the power unit and the cable (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2, data lines (e.g., the cable) may be connected directly to the repeaters whereas the power line is not connected directly to such data lines. A distance between the repeater unit and the cable may thus be interpreted as being less than a distance between the power unit and the cable; Decrock; Figs. 1-7; [0012]-[0014], [0029]-[0035]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decrock et al. (US 2013/0002046, Decrock hereinafter) in view of Vavik (US 2011/0103274). Regarding claim 6, Decrock teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Decrock does not specifically disclose at least one of the N repeater modules includes a terminating resistance having a resistance matched to the impedance of the cable. Vavik teaches at least one of the N repeater modules includes a terminating resistance having a resistance matched to the impedance of the cable (Repeaters may be connected to a cable using at least a matching device that may perform impedance matching. At least one of the N repeater modules may thus be interpreted as including a terminating resistance having a resistance matched to the impedance of the cable; Vavik; [0035]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Vavik regarding use of repeaters with the teachings as in Decrock use of repeaters. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by achieving improved isolation (Vavik; [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights