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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 08, 2026 in which claims 1-24 are presented for examination; of which, claims 1 and 13 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on June 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-24 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang P CN 209086919U.
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.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0302431 A1 (LUGTHART MARCEL LOUIS [US] ET AL) 19 October 2017 (2017-10-19) in view of Wang P. CN 209086919 U.
Regarding claim 1, LUGTHART et al. disclose “an in-vehicle Ethernet network for data communication within a vehicle” (see LUGTHART et al. Paragraph 0335 describing Ethernet copper cabling) comprising “a plurality of cables, including at least a first cable having a first length, and a second cable having a second length shorter than the first length” (see Paragraph 0207 describing transceivers operate with different cable lengths; different cable lengths imply that a cable is shorter than the other; see Paragraph 0309 describing communication channel baud rate; see paragraph 0337 describing with its table describing transceivers modules operate with a cable each individual micro coaxial wire cable length; Length Rate; hence, the two transceivers operate cables with different lengths). It is noted however, did not specifically detail the aspects of “a first Ethernet transceiver coupled to the first cable and configured to communicate first symbols over the first cable at a first baud rate that is commensurate with the first length”; and “a second Ethernet transceiver, coupled to the second cable and configured to communicate second symbols over the cable at a second baud rate that is commensurate with the second length and lower than the first baud” as recited in the instant claim 1. On the other hand, Wang P achieved the aforementioned claimed features by providing field devices of distance controller, implements to be controlled. The field devices of reasonable position side is sequentially connected, and is stopped as length of cable about 200m and the baud rate of the first branched bottom of setting is 1.5 Mbps; In the same fashion, another Field device within cable distance 1000m accesses the second branched bottom, and the baud rate of the second branched bottom of setting is 187.5 kbps; In the same fashion, other side field device of controller physical location accesses third branched bottom, which sets Standby cable total length is less than 100m, and the baud rate of third branched bottom is set as 12Mbps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporated the bus system circuitry of Wang P into the Ethernet copper cabling of LUGTHART et al. because that would have enhanced the versatility of LUGTHART et al. by allowing it to provide a variety of different baud rates that can be compatible with each branched bottom simultaneously, so that the field devices according to different demands most suitable traffic rate is set; thus, increase the availability of PROFIBUS DP network and significantly reduce scrap build expense.
Claim 13 defines a method entirely corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
Hence, the rejection with respect to claim 1 apply, mutatis mutandis, also to
claim 13.
The subject matter of dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 are also rejected since their subject matter are also disclosed in LUGTHART et al. (the links of claims 2 and 14 are disclosed in Paragraph 0337; the switches of claims 3 and 15 are disclosed in Paragraph 0335; the modulation of claims 4 and 16 is disclosed in Paragraph 0332; the baud rates of claims 5 and 17 are disclosed in Paragraph 0308; the support of claims 6 and 18 is disclosed in Paragraph 0309; the signal processing of claims 7 and 19 is disclosed in Paragraph 0313; the echo canceler of claims 8 and 20 is disclosed in Paragraph 0315; the equalizer of claims 9 and 21 is disclosed in Paragraph 0317; the connections of claims 10 and 22 are disclosed in Paragraph 0319; the operation of claims 11 and 23 is disclosed in Paragraph 0320; the cable types of claims 12 and 24 are disclosed in Paragraph 0337).
Remarks
The Applicant argued that “Lugthart does not disclose the inverse relationship being claimed-that a shorter cable uses a lower baud rate (and thus higher- order modulation, as per claim 4) than a longer cable. This specific relationship is absent from Lugthart”. The Examiner agrees and has introduced Wang P to have shown such limitations. In Particular, Wang P achieved the aforementioned claimed features by providing field device of distance controller, implements will be controlled. The field device of reason position side is sequentially connected, and is stopped as length of cable about 200m and the baud rate of the first branched bottom of setting is 1.5 Mbps; In the same fashion, will Field device within cable distance 1000m accesses the second branched bottom, and the baud rate of the second branched bottom of setting is 187.5 kbps; In the same fashion, the other side field device of controller physical location accesses third branched bottom, which sets Standby cable total length is less than 100m, and the baud rate of third branched bottom is set as 12Mbps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporated the bus system circuitry of Wang P into the Ethernet copper cabling of LUGTHART et al. because that would have enhanced the versatility of LUGTHART et al. by allowing it to provide a variety of different baud rates that can be compatible with each branched bottom simultaneously, so that the field devices according to different demands most suitable traffic rate is set; thus, increase the availability of PROFIBUS DP network and significantly reduce scrap build expense.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANTZ COBY whose telephone number is (571)272-4017. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-5:30PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/FRANTZ COBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights