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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues ‘…coupled port 74 is explicitly termed the "coupled port" of the directional coupler, and couples input CATV signals at input port 73 to coupled port 74 to distribute the CATV signals to the output ports 44, 46, 48 and 50. Accordingly, coupled port 74 is not "isolated from the CATV input port" as recited in claim 21…’ Examiner disagrees. Under MPEP 2111, during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Claim 21 recites ‘isolated from’. Applicant’s specification does not state explicitly what isolated means and therefore the ordinary and customary meaning must be used. Isolated means separated from other persons or things. That is, any isolation is enough. Port 73 is electrically isolated from port 74 and the output ports 46, 48, and 50; although port 73 may not be radio frequency isolated from port 74, the claim does not state this. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the rejection is proper.
Further, Applicant argues that ‘…the Office Action alleges the coupled port 74 of Boskaljon is coupled to the output port 75…’ Examiner disagrees. It is not clear what Applicant is arguing here since the rejection never really alleges this.
Finally, Applicant argues that ‘…There is no reasonable expectation of success in modifying Boskaljon's output ports 44, 46, 48 and 50 into MoCA ports "isolated from the CATV input port," as recited in claim 21, because the outdoor tap 10 is designed to distribute the CATV signals to the output ports 44, 46, 48 and 50…’ Examiner disagrees. As argued above, Baskaljon does disclose isolation and the motivation to make the ports MoCA is to allow for high-speed, reliable and low-latency networking and further reducing the need for new wiring and further by offering a stable and secure and interference-resistant alternative to WiFi and further to work with WiFi to free up limited wireless resources.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues similarly to claim 21. See arguments above and rejection below.
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)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-29 and 38-39 are 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights