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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23 and 26-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon (2017/0201001).
Claim 21 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 does not explicitly disclose a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line. However, Boskaljon does disclose a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3, para. 23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 to include the teaching of a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line of Boskaljon with the motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 22 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines); this is how a microstrip directional coupler works by exciting a wave in a second transmission line) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 23 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 26 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 27 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 28 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 29 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 30 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; part 72 microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claims 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Okada (2010/0171565).
Claim 24 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 does not explicitly disclose a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line. However, Boskaljon does disclose a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3, para. 23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 to include the teaching of a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line of Boskaljon with the motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner, 76, (e.g. gateway splitter; connected to MoCA)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for multiple devices to be connected to the network which expands network coverage and allows for more complex coverage scenarios and further to allow for flexibility in network design and implementation and further to prevent MoCA signals from traversing drop cables to tap (See Halik para. 58) and further to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. However, Okada does disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. (See Okada para. 30; see also para. 37) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter of Okada with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to prevent unauthorized access and further maximize limited resources by minimizing potential causes of interference and thereby increase throughput and reduce delay and lost data. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 25 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner into multiple MoCA interfaces (e.g. gateway splitter)) The motivation being to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58) This is an obvious variant.
Claims 31-33, 36-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon (2017/0201001).
Claim 31 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 does not explicitly disclose a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S. However, Boskaljon does disclose a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S. (See Boskaljon fig. 3, para. 23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 to include the teaching of a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S of Boskaljon with the motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 32 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines); this is how a microstrip directional coupler works by exciting a wave in a second transmission line) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 33 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 36 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 37 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 38 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 39 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 40 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; part 72 microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two) The motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing. This is an obvious variant.
Claims 34-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Okada (2010/0171565).
Claim 34 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 does not explicitly disclose a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S. However, Boskaljon does disclose a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S. (See Boskaljon fig. 3, para. 23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 to include the teaching of a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S of Boskaljon with the motivation being for high directivity and isolation and further for miniaturization and cost-effective manufacturing.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner, 76, (e.g. gateway splitter; connected to MoCA)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for multiple devices to be connected to the network which expands network coverage and allows for more complex coverage scenarios and further to allow for flexibility in network design and implementation and further to prevent MoCA signals from traversing drop cables to tap (See Halik para. 58) and further to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. However, Okada does disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. (See Okada para. 30; see also para. 37) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter of Okada with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to prevent unauthorized access and further maximize limited resources by minimizing potential causes of interference and thereby increase throughput and reduce delay and lost data. This is an obvious variant.
Claim 35 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,440 in view of Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner into multiple MoCA interfaces (e.g. gateway splitter)) The motivation being to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58) This is an obvious variant.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564).
Regarding claim 21, Boskaljon discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a first transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; strip on top part of item 72 is first transmission line; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines)
a second transmission line electromagnetically coupled to the first transmission line though a dielectric medium separating the first transmission line and the second transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; strip on bottom part of item 72 is second transmission line; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines))
a first port electrically connected to a first terminal of the first transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; part 18 output terminal (e.g. first terminal) which is connected to output port, part 75 (e.g. first port))
a cable television (CATV) input port electrically connected to a second terminal of the first transmission line; and (See Boskaljon fig. 3; part 16 a second terminal which is electrically connected to input port, part 73; para. 15 CATV)
a port electrically connected to the second transmission line, wherein the port is isolated from the CATV input port and coupled to the first port. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; output ports (44, 46, 48, 50) are connected to the second transmission line of the microstrip directional coupler, part 72, and is isolated (because of microstrip directional coupler) from part 73 (input port) and is coupled to part 18)
Boskaljon discloses using directional coupler and a four-way splitter. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; parts 72, 34) Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50; para. 32) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the port could be a MoCA port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources.
Regarding claim 22, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first transmission line, the second transmission line, and the dielectric medium are configured such that a wave propagating on the first transmission line excites a wave in the second transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines); this is how a microstrip directional coupler works by exciting a wave in a second transmission line)
Regarding claim 23, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first transmission line and the second transmission line are elongated and parallel to one another. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two)
Regarding claim 26, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising:
a splitter connected between the second transmission line and the port; and
one or more additional ports electrically connected to the splitter.
(See Boskaljon fig. 3; 4 way splitter with output ports)
Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port and the splitter could be a MoCA splitter. However, Halik does disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50 connected to a MoCA splitter; para. 32) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the port could be a MoCA port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources and further to allow for multiple devices for flexible network implementation.
Regarding claim 30, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first transmission line is a first microstrip transmission line and the second transmission line is a second microstrip transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; part 72 microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two)
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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Fujiki (5,359,304).
Regarding claim 27, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Halik discloses using MoCA. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50; para. 32) The motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources.
Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band. However, Fujiki does disclose wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band. (See Fujiki fig. 5, col. 1, lines 26-40; coupled-line directional coupler has ¼ of a wavelength) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band of Fujiki with the motivation being to frequency selectively isolate certain bands and further to provide strong coupling for higher MoCA frequencies while at the same time isolating the CATV frequencies (which are generally lower).
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.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Okada (2010/0171565).
Regarding claim 24, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses a system, comprising:
the apparatus of claim 21, (See Claim 21 Rejection)
Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner, 76, (e.g. gateway splitter; connected to MoCA)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for multiple devices to be connected to the network which expands network coverage and allows for more complex coverage scenarios and further to allow for flexibility in network design and implementation and further to prevent MoCA signals from traversing drop cables to tap (See Halik para. 58) and further to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. However, Okada does disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. (See Okada para. 30; see also para. 37) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter of Okada with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to prevent unauthorized access and further maximize limited resources by minimizing potential causes of interference and thereby increase throughput and reduce delay and lost data.
Regarding claim 25, Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the low-pass filter blocks MoCA frequency band signals. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner into multiple MoCA interfaces (e.g. gateway splitter)) The motivation being to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
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.
Claims 31, 32, 33, 36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564).
Regarding claim 31, Boskaljon discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a first transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; strip on top part of item 72 is first transmission line; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines)
a second transmission line parallel to the first transmission line and separated from the first transmission line by a distance S, the second transmission line being electromagnetically coupled to the first transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; strip on bottom part of item 72 is second transmission line; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines; there is some distance S between the two transmission lines)
a first port electrically connected to a first terminal of the first transmission line; (See Boskaljon fig. 3; part 18 output terminal (e.g. first terminal) which is connected to output port, part 75 (e.g. first port))
an input port electrically connected to a second terminal of the first transmission line; and (See Boskaljon fig. 3; part 16 a second terminal which is electrically connected to input port, part 73; para. 15 CATV)
a port electrically connected to the second transmission line, wherein the port is isolated from the input port and coupled to the first port. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; output ports (44, 46, 48, 50) are connected to the second transmission line of the microstrip directional coupler, part 72, and is isolated (because of microstrip directional coupler) from part 73 (input port) and is coupled to part 18)
Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50; para. 32) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the port could be a MoCA port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources.
Regarding claim 32, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein a wave propagating on the first transmission line excites a wave in the second transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines); this is how a microstrip directional coupler works by exciting a wave in a second transmission line)
Regarding claim 33, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 31, further comprising a dielectric medium between the first transmission line and the second transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines)
Regarding claim 36, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 31, further comprising:
a splitter connected between the second transmission line and the port; and
one or more additional ports electrically connected to the splitter. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; 4 way splitter with output ports)
Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port and the splitter could be a MoCA splitter. However, Halik does disclose wherein the port could be a MoCA port. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50 connected to a MoCA splitter; para. 32) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the port could be a MoCA port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources and further to allow for multiple devices for flexible network implementation.
Regarding claim 40, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the first transmission line is a first microstrip transmission line and the second transmission line is a second microstrip transmission line. (See Boskaljon fig. 3; para. 23; part 72 microstrip directional coupler with two lines separated by dielectric medium which separates first and second transmission lines and are elongated as in the length is larger than the width between the two)
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Fujiki (5,359,304).
Regarding claim 37, Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada discloses the apparatus of claim 31. Halik discloses using MoCA. (See Halik fig. 3; MoCA ports 50; para. 32) The motivation being to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable, secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources.
Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band. However, Fujiki does disclose wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band. (See Fujiki fig. 5, col. 1, lines 26-40; coupled-line directional coupler has ¼ of a wavelength) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein a length of the first transmission line is equal to ¼ of a wavelength in a band of Fujiki with the motivation being to frequency selectively isolate certain bands and further to provide strong coupling for higher MoCA frequencies while at the same time isolating the CATV frequencies (which are generally lower).
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.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boskaljon (2017/0201001) and further in view of Halik (2010/0146564) and further in view of Okada (2010/0171565).
Regarding claim 34, Boskaljon in view of Halik discloses a system, comprising:
the apparatus of claim 31, (See Claim 31 Rejection)
Boskaljon does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. However, Halik does disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner, 76, (e.g. gateway splitter; connected to MoCA)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Boskaljon to include the teaching of wherein the apparatus comprises a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) gateway splitter; and a filter coupled to the CATV input port of Halik with the motivation being to allow for multiple devices to be connected to the network which expands network coverage and allows for more complex coverage scenarios and further to allow for flexibility in network design and implementation and further to prevent MoCA signals from traversing drop cables to tap (See Halik para. 58) and further to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
Boskaljon in view of Halik does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. However, Okada does disclose wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter. (See Okada para. 30; see also para. 37) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Boskaljon in view of Halik to include the teaching of wherein the filter could be a low-pass filter of Okada with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to prevent unauthorized access and further maximize limited resources by minimizing potential causes of interference and thereby increase throughput and reduce delay and lost data.
Regarding claim 35, Boskaljon in view of Halik in view of Okada discloses the system of claim 34, wherein the low-pass filter blocks MoCA frequency band signals. (See Halik fig. 3, para. 58; MoCA Frequency Rejection Filter (e.g. filter) and Splitter/Combiner into multiple MoCA interfaces (e.g. gateway splitter)) The motivation being to prevent MoCA signals from an adjacent subscriber premise from adversely influencing or deteriorating the quality of an adjacent MoCA adapter. (See Halik para. 58)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461