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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabler (US 2002/0099966).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Cabler teaches a device (¶ [0033], see specifically apparatus) comprising:
a processor (¶ [0033], see specifically processing module); and
a physical interface communicatively coupled to the processor (¶ [0003], see specifically interface) a physical interface communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to communicatively couple to a second device via a wired communication link having a communications protocol comprising a plurality of signaling types (¶ [0036], see specifically that it matches one of the at least one startup types.)
and further configured to:
detect a presence or absence of signaling on the wired communication link based on one or more signal properties of a signal on the wired communication link (¶ [0027], see specifically magnitude); and
detect a signaling type, from the plurality of signaling types, of signaling on the wired communication link based on one or more signal properties of the signal on the wired communication link (¶ [0013], see specifically known set of characteristics.)
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Cabler teaches detecting the presence or absence of signaling on the wired communication link is based on a magnitude of the signal on the wired communication link (¶ [0013], see specifically magnitude).
Regarding Claim 5 and 18, Cabler teaches the signaling type comprises differential signaling (¶ [0019], see specifically differential quadrature phase shift signaling.)
Regarding Claim 7 and 20, Cabler teaches the physical interface is further configured to wake the device from a low-power or sleep state in response to detecting the presence of signaling on the wired communication link (¶ [0013], see specifically waking up a circuit.)
Regarding Claim 10 and 23, Cabler teaches the physical interface is further configured to detect the signaling type based on a range of magnitude of the signal for a communications protocol-dependent period of time (¶ [0013], see specifically magnitude and the known set of characteristics).
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 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 nonobviousness.
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) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabler (US 2002/0099966) in view of Liu (WO 2019/094494).
Regarding Claim 3 and 16, Cabler teaches detecting the signaling type of signaling on the wired communication link is based on a magnitude of the signal on the wired communication link (¶ [0013], see specifically magnitude).
Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting a periodicity of the signal on the wired communication link (¶ [0016], see specifically wake up signal periodicity.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to observe for a wake up signal periodicity in the system of Cabler as taught by Liu.
The motivation is that that Cabler is a generic system designed for multiple wireline protocols, and it would be obvious to adapt it to other systems such as the one in Weiss.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabler (US 2002/0099966) in view of Ko (US 2016/0379642)
Regarding Claim 4 and 17, Cabler fails to explicitly teach the signaling type comprises single-ended signaling
Ko from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the signaling type comprises single-ended signaling (¶ [0104], see specifically single ended mode)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a single ended mode in the system of Cabler as taught by Ko.
The motivation is that changing from a differential to a single-ended mode further reduces power reduction and would do the same in the system of Cabler.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 13, 19, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabler (US 2002/0099966) in view of Weiss (US 2011/0227641).
Regarding Claim 6 and 19, Cabler fails to explicitly teach the wired communication link comprises two signal lines.
Weiss from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the wired communication link comprises two signal lines (¶ [0047], see specifically compare voltages between RXDP and RXDN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to compare between two signaling lines in the system of Calber in the system of Weiss.
The motivation is that that Weiss is a generic system designed for multiple wireline protocols, and it would be obvious to adapt it to other systems such as the one in Weiss.
Regarding Claims 12 and 25, Cabler fails to explicitly teach the wired communication link comprises two signal lines; and the physical interface is further configured to detect the signaling type based on a magnitude of a common-mode between signals on the two signal lines.
Weiss from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the wired communication link comprises two signal lines; and the physical interface is further configured to detect the signaling type based on a magnitude of a common-mode between signals on the two signal lines (¶ [0047], see specifically compare voltages between RXDP and RXDN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to compare between two signaling lines in the system of Calber in the system of Weiss.
The motivation is that that Cabler is a generic system designed for multiple wireline protocols, and it would be obvious to adapt it to other systems such as the one in Weiss.
Regarding Claims 13 and 26, Cabler fails to explicitly teach the wired communication link comprises two signal lines; and the physical interface is further configured to detect the signaling type based on a maximum magnitude between a first signal on a first signal line of the two signal lines and a second signal on a second signal line of the two signal lines.
Weiss from the same or similar field of endeavor the wired communication link comprises two signal lines; and the physical interface is further configured to detect the signaling type based on a maximum magnitude between a first signal on a first signal line of the two signal lines and a second signal on a second signal line of the two signal lines (¶ [0047], see specifically compare voltages between RXDP and RXDN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to compare between two signaling lines in the system of Calber in the system of Weiss.
The motivation is that that Weiss is a generic system designed for multiple wireline protocols, and it would be obvious to adapt it to other systems such as the one in Weiss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Applicant submits that Cabler cannot anticipate the pending claims of the present application, at least because Cabler fails to teach, either expressly or inherently, each and every feature of the recited claims. For example, Cabler fails to teach, either expressly or inherently, "a physical interface communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to communicatively couple to a second device via a wired communication link having a communications protocol comprising a plurality of signaling types, and further configured to: detect a presence or absence of signaling on the wired communication link based on one or more signal properties of a signal on the wired communication link; and detect a signaling type, from the plurality of signaling types, of signaling on the wired communication link based on one or more signal properties of the signal on the wired communication link," as recited in Claim 1, and as similarly recited in Claim 14. The present application consistently uses the term "signaling type" to refer to different signaling modes supported by a communications protocol, such as differential signaling and single-ended signaling. See, e.g., Fig. 2 and accompanying description. The claimed detection of a signaling type therefore requires determining which signaling mode is presently being used on the communication link, not merely determining whether a received signal satisfies predetermined wake-up criteria.
The Examiner asserts that paragraph [0036] of Cabler teaches "a communications protocol comprising a plurality of signaling types" because Cabler describes that a received signal "matches one of the at least one startup types," and further asserts that paragraph [0013] of Cabler teaches detecting a signaling type "from the plurality of signaling types" by reference to a "known set of characteristics." (Office Action, Page 3.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. Cabler's "startup types" and "known set of characteristics" describe the criteria by which Cabler determines that a single, expected wakeup signal is present on its analog front-end so as to enable the modem's digital circuitry. Even assuming arguendo that Cabler discloses multiple startup sequences, different startup sequences are not different signaling types. The claims require a communications protocol supporting a plurality of signaling types and determining which signaling type is being used. Different wake-up sequences transmitted using the same signaling scheme do not constitute different signaling types. Cabler does not describe any communication link supporting a plurality of distinct signaling types (e.g., differential and single-ended), nor does Cabler describe any mechanism to detect which of a plurality of distinct signaling types is presently in use on the link. To the contrary, Cabler treats signal detection as a single binary inquiry, i.e., is a valid signal present, or is it not, and never contemplates classifying a detected signal among multiple available signaling types of a single communication protocol.
The Examiner's mapping conflates two distinct claim features. The recited "detect a presence or absence of signaling" feature is satisfied in Cabler by determining that the signal magnitude exceeds a threshold. (Office Action, Page 3, citing Cabler [0027].) But the separately- recited "detect a signaling type, from the plurality of signaling types," feature recites more than mere detection of presence; it recites classification of the detected signal as one type among the plurality of types supported by the communications protocol. Cabler discloses no such classification. Indeed, the very fact that the Office Action relies on Ko (US 2016/0379642) under § 103 to supply the "single-ended signaling" feature of Claim 4, and on Weiss (US 2011/0227641) under § 103 to supply the "two signal lines" feature of Claim 6, confirms that Cabler does not itself disclose a wired communication link supporting a plurality of distinct signaling types. (Office Action, Pages 5-6.) Cabler cannot simultaneously disclose a "plurality of signaling types" for purposes of anticipating Claims 1 and 14 while also failing to disclose either of the two signaling types recited in dependent Claims 4 and 6. The Office Action's reliance on Weiss in the obviousness rejection further confirms that Cabler does not itself disclose determining a type of received signal. If Cabler already disclosed classification of signaling among multiple signaling types, there would be no need to rely on Weiss for additional signal-type determination teachings.
Examiner disagrees, looking to ¶ [0036]:
[0036] FIG. 7 illustrates a logic diagram for further describing the process of determining whether the signal is of a particular type of signal. The process begins at Step 124 where a digital representation of the signal is stored. The process then proceeds to Step 126 where the digital representation of the signal is compared with at least one startup sequence of a data transmission protocol. The process then proceeds to Step 128 where, when the signal substantially matches one of the at least one startup sequences of a data transmission protocol, the system wakeup signal is generated.
Examiner submits that Cabler specifically teaches at least one startup sequences, which anticipates more than one in ¶ [0036]. These startup sequences have a set of characteristics, and these characteristics would teach a signaling type.
Examiner submits that applicant does not clearly redefine the term signaling type in a way that would give it a special definition in the specification.
Applicant may further limit what is meant by signaling type in later claims by bringing in additional limitations, but the system of Cabler teaches the system of Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 23.
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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights