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 Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response/communication filed 7/29/2026.
Claim(s) 1-36 and 47-48 has/have been cancelled.
Claims(s) 57-58 has/have been added.
Claims(s) 37-46 and 49-58 is/are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 7/29/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/29/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to objection of the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to objection of claims 38, 39, 41, 46, 48, 53, 54 and 56 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 16, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 37, 38, 39, 40, 54 and 55 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 16, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 46, 47, 50, 52 and 53 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks, in regard to claims 37, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. US 20130322882 in view of Sarda et al. US 20190058757.
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
Issue #37a:
Claim 37 - Applicant respectfully traverses the § 103 rejection of Claim 37 as presented herein.
Claim 37 requires "generating [OFDM] waveforms, the OFDM waveforms comprising an IoT channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs," and "delivering the IoT data, via the IoT channel, to the respective ones of the recipient devices." The cited combination does not disclose or suggest an IoT channel of this character.
Fang is directed to an Ethernet-passive-optical-network-over-coax (EPoC) access architecture in which Ethernet frames from an EPON PHY are fragmented to fill allocated PRBs and transmitted as OFDM symbols to coaxial network units (CNUs), the allocation of PRBs being specified in a DL-MAP (Fang, ,i,i [0056], [0068]). Fang thus discloses only the delivery of generic per-CNU data over a coaxial channel; it discloses no IoT channel, no IoT data, and no channel dedicated to Internet-of-Things traffic. The Office concedes as much acknowledging that "Fang et al. as described above does not explicitly teach: Internet-of-Things (IoT) / IoT [data] / IoT [channel]" (Office Action, p. 34).
Issue #37b:
Sarda does not cure the deficiency. The sole passage relied upon recites that a CPE device "may include a set-top box (STB), multimedia gateway device, IP ... client device, modem, router, wireless extender, tablet, computer, mobile device, Internet of things (IoT) device, and/or any other device" (Sarda, ,i [0013]). Sarda merely names an "IoT device" as one item in a non-exhaustive list of customer-premises equipment; it says nothing of an IoT channel, of IoT data occupying an allocated plurality of PRBs, or of generating OFDM waveforms comprising such a channel. The Office's stated basis - that "Sarda ... teaches a CPE is analogous to a[n] IoT device" (Office Action, p. 34)- supplies, at most, the label "IoT." Applying that label to Fang's generic per-CNU data does not yield the claimed IoT channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs.
Issue #37c:
Nor has the Office articulated an adequate reason to combine. The Office offers only that the combination achieves "improved end to end fiber/coaxial system (Fang; [0006]) with improved system (Sarda; [0005])" (Office Action, p. 35). Such a generalized statement of benefit does not explain why one of ordinary skill would have modified Fang's per-CNU data delivery to form an IoT channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs, and thus does not supply the "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" required to support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes:
With regards to issue #37a:
Claim 37 does not teach “channel dedicated to Internet-of-Things traffic”, as argued by the Applicant, there is no mention of “dedicated” in the claim.
Furthermore, the claim notes “ones of the recipient devices”, the “ones of the recipient devices” is/are not restricted to “IoT devices”, therefore, generic communication devices or “things” communicating via the “Internet” are considered as “Internet-of-Things (IoT)”.
Furthermore, Claim 37 merely mentions generic communication associated with “ones of the recipient devices” and where the claimed communication does not make any distinction between “Internet-of-Things (IoT)” communication and generic Internet related communication, therefore, the “24 MHz OFDM channel” of Fang et al. and associated elements are considered as sufficient for teaching the “IoT channel”, “IoT data”, etc. as claimed.
With regards to issue #37b:
Fang et al. is noted as not “explicitly teach”, “Internet-of-Things (IoT), “IoT [data]”, and “IoT [channel”, which is where Sarda et al. is considered as “explicitly” teaching, “Internet-of-Things (IoT), IoT [data]” IoT [channel], etc. Please see issue #37a above with further arguments related to “Internet-of-Things”.
With regards to issue #37c:
Fang et al. and Sarda et al. both teach providing Internet communications associated with CPE, set-top-boxes and other similar devices via coaxial service (Fang et al.; para. 0005, 0030, 0043, 0044, FIG. 1) (Sarda et al.; para. 0013 0014, FIG. 1), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the IoT capability of Sarda et al. into Fang et al.
On pages 12 of the remarks, in regard to claims 33 and 39, the Applicant states that the claims are allowable at least due to the deficiencies of the ground of rejection applied to the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner kindly refers the Applicant to the reasoning pertaining to the independent claims, detailed above.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 37, 38 and 40 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 14, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11974080. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to claim 37:
U.S. Application 18649755
U.S. Patent No. 11974080
A computerized method of operating a network having at least a portion
comprising radio frequency (RF)-capable wireline infrastructure to deliver respective Internet-of-Things (IoT) data to respective ones of recipient devices disposed at different premises, the computerized method comprising:
allocating a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) within a prescribed portion of a
frequency spectrum carried by the RF-capable wireline infrastructure;
generating orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveforms, the OFDM
waveforms comprising an IoT channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs; and
transmitting the generated OFDM waveforms over at least the RF-capable wireline infrastructure, the transmitting of the generated OFDM waveforms comprising delivering the loT
data, via the IoT channel, to the respective ones of the recipient devices.
A computerized method of operating a network having at least a portion comprising radio frequency (RF)-capable wireline infrastructure to deliver respective IoT (Internet of Things) data to respective ones of IoT devices disposed at different premises, the computerized method comprising:
allocating a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) within a prescribed portion of a frequency spectrum carried by the RF-capable wireline infrastructure;
generating OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) waveforms, the OFDM waveforms comprising the respective IoT data disposed within one or more of the allocated plurality of PRBs, wherein the disposition of the respective IoT data within one or more of the allocated plurality of PRBs is representative of a separate logical IoT channel within a long-term evolution (LTE)-complaint channel; upconverting the generated OFDM waveforms to a user frequency band; and
transmitting the generated OFDM waveforms over at least the RF-capable wireline infrastructure. (claim 14)
As to claim 38:
U.S. Application 18649755
U.S. Patent No. 11974080
The computerized method of claim 37, wherein the transmitting comprises
transmitting at least portions of the generated first OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a
plurality of computerized premises devices disposed at respective ones of the different premises,
each of the plurality of computerized premises devices in signal communication with one or
more loT devices.
The computerized method of claim 14, wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of computerized premises devices disposed at respective ones of the different premises, each of the plurality of computerized premises devices in signal communication with a respective one of the IoT devices. (claim 15)
As to claim 40:
U.S. Application 18649755
U.S. Patent No. 11974080
The computerized method of claim 37, wherein the generating of the OFDM
waveforms comprising the IoT channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs comprises forming
a logical IoT channel embedded within a prescribed portion of a long-term evolution (LTE)-
complaint channel.
A computerized method of operating a network having at least a portion comprising radio frequency (RF)-capable wireline infrastructure to deliver respective IoT (Internet of Things) data to respective ones of IoT devices disposed at different premises, the computerized method comprising:
allocating a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) within a prescribed portion of a frequency spectrum carried by the RF-capable wireline infrastructure;
generating OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) waveforms, the OFDM waveforms comprising the respective IoT data disposed within one or more of the allocated plurality of PRBs, wherein the disposition of the respective IoT data within one or more of the allocated plurality of PRBs is representative of a separate logical IoT channel within a long-term evolution (LTE)-complaint channel; upconverting the generated OFDM waveforms to a user frequency band; and
transmitting the generated OFDM waveforms over at least the RF-capable wireline infrastructure. (claim 14)
Claim (s) 39 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 14, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11974080 in view of Hoole et al. US 11102560.
U.S. Patent No. 11974080 discloses:
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated first OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of IoT devices capable of receiving and demodulating the OFDM waveforms in a prescribed transmission band.
The computerized method of claim 14, wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of computerized premises devices disposed at respective ones of the different premises, each of the plurality of computerized premises devices in signal communication with a respective one of the IoT devices. (claim 15)
U.S. Patent No. 11974080 as described above does not explicitly teach:
demodulating
However, Hoole et al. further teaches a demodulation capability which includes:
demodulating
(“A computerized method of operating a radio frequency (RF) network having an RF operating spectrum so that extant hybrid fiber coax (HFC) infrastructure is used to deliver wireless IoT (Internet of Things) data, the computerized method comprising: receiving the OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) waveforms via at least one computerized premises device, wherein the receiving of the OFDM waveforms comprises receiving the OFDM waveforms over at least a portion of the HFC infrastructure using at least (i) a first frequency band, and (ii) a portion of a 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) anchor channel configured to transport control data to the at least one computerized premises device for termination thereat; upconverting the received OFDM waveforms to a user frequency band; and distributing the upconverted received OFDM waveforms to at least one computerized user device capable of demodulating the upconverted received OFDM waveforms to recover the IoT data.; claim 1)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the demodulation capability of Hoole et al. into U.S. Patent No. 11974080. By modifying the processing/communications of U.S. Patent No. 11974080 to include the demodulation capability as taught by the processing/communications of Hoole et al.
Claim(s) 54 and 55 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11102560. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to claim 54:
U.S. Application 18649755
U.S. Patent No. 11102560
Computer readable apparatus comprising a non-transitory storage medium,
the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality
of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a processing
apparatus of a computerized client device, cause the computerized client device to:
utilize a first portion of an RF operating spectrum of the hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) radio
frequency network to receive communications compliant with a first wireless technology; and
utilize a second portion of the RF operating spectrum to receive Internet-of-Things (IoT)
data via communications compliant with a second wireless technology,
the utilization of the
second portion comprising utilization of a portion of an LTE anchor channel as a channel for the
IoT data.
A computerized method of utilizing a hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) radio frequency (RF) network for distribution of radio frequency signals encoding IoT (Internet of Things) data, the computerized method comprising:
utilizing a first portion of an RF operating spectrum of the hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) radio frequency network to provide communications compliant with a first wireless technology; and
utilizing a second portion of the RF operating spectrum to provide the IoT data via communications compliant with a second wireless technology, the
utilizing of the second portion comprising using a portion of an LTE anchor channel as a channel for the IoT data; wherein the using of the portion of the LTE anchor channel comprises: selectively filtering all but the portion of the LTE anchor channel; and distributing the unfiltered portion of the LTE anchor channel to at least one IoT end device. (claim 5)
As to claim 55:
U.S. Application 18649755
U.S. Patent No. 11102560
The computer readable apparatus of claim 54, wherein the utilization of
the portion of the LTE anchor channel comprises:
selectively filtering all but the portion of the LTE anchor channel; and
distribution of the unfiltered portion of the LTE anchor channel to at least one IoT end
device.
A computerized method of utilizing a hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) radio frequency (RF) network for distribution of radio frequency signals encoding IoT (Internet of Things) data, the computerized method comprising:
utilizing a first portion of an RF operating spectrum of the hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) radio frequency network to provide communications compliant with a first wireless technology; and
utilizing a second portion of the RF operating spectrum to provide the IoT data via communications compliant with a second wireless technology, the
utilizing of the second portion comprising using a portion of an LTE anchor channel as a channel for the IoT data; wherein the using of the portion of the LTE anchor channel comprises:
selectively filtering all but the portion of the LTE anchor channel; and distributing the unfiltered portion of the LTE anchor channel to at least one IoT end device. (claim 5)
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 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) 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. US 20130322882 (U.S. Patent Documents citation #108, listed on IDS dated 2024-07-29) in view of Sarda et al. US 20190058757 (cited in Non-Final Rejection dated 4/29/2026).
As to claim 37:
Fang et al. discloses:
A computerized method of operating a network having at least a portion
comprising radio frequency (RF)-capable wireline infrastructure to deliver respective …data to respective ones of recipient devices disposed at different premises, the computerized method comprising:
(“…The CNUs 130 may be typically located at distributed locations, such as the customer premises, but may be located at other locations as well.”; Fang et al.; 0042)
(where
FIG. 1 illustrates “infrastructure”
“The CNUs 130 may be typically located at distributed locations, such as the customer premises” maps to “respective ones of recipient devices disposed at different premises”
allocating a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) within a prescribed portion of a frequency spectrum carried by the RF-capable wireline infrastructure;
(“FIG. 14 illustrates an embodiment of a coax downstream frame structure 1400. A frame comprises 75 symbols with symbol number varying from 0 to 74. Each symbol comprises multiple PRBs with PRB number varying from 0 to N. The value N is 15 for a 24 megahertz (MHz) channel with 16 PRBs and the value N is 79 for a 120 MHz channel with 80 PRBs. Thus, there are 75*(N+1) PRBs in one downstream frame. All the PRBs are used to transmit data. Each PRB may be allocated to a different CNU. For example, in the downstream frame 1400, each PRB in symbol 0 is allocated to a different LLID as shown in 1410, while in symbols 1, 2, and 3, contiguous PRBs are allocated to one LLID as shown in 1420. The first two PRBs in all payload symbols are used for control channels such as UL-MAP, DL-MAP and other control signaling as shown in 1430. They are modulated and coded in a predefined modulation order and coding parameters.”; Fang et al.; 0068)
(“…bandwidth…while in the coaxial domain, it is a two-dimensional allocation based on time and frequency which is expressed in terms of OFDM symbols and sub-carriers or PRBs…; Fang et al.; 0047)
(where
“PRBs”/”PRB may be allocated” maps to “allocating a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs)”,
“24..MHz channel”/”120 MHz channel” maps to “within a prescribed portion of a frequency spectrum”
“coax”/”bandwidth…coaxial domain…frequency” maps to “carried by the RF-capable wireline infrastructure”
generating orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveforms, the OFDM waveforms comprising an …channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs; and
(“FIG. 15 illustrates an embodiment of an exemplary coax PHY downstream frame format 1500 for a 24 MHz OFDM channel. Each downstream frame includes a Downstream Training Sequence (DTS) 1510 and 75 payload symbols 1520. There are two sequences in DTS 1510, a first sequence DTS1 1530 and a second sequence DTS2 1540. DTS1 1530 is a Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequence and may be 1 or 32 OFDM symbols in length. DTS2 1540 is a ZC sequence of 1 OFDM symbol plus CP in length. Each payload symbol comprises 1024 sub-carriers with 16 continuous PRBs where each PRB comprises 64 continuous sub-carriers. In a downstream frame, there are pilots located in the PRB which are specified in a DL-MAP. There may be 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 24 MHz OFDM channel and 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 120 MHz OFDM channel where channel bonding may be present. Symbol alignment may be performed during DTS1, frequency offset estimation and compensation may be performed during DTS2, sampling clock synchronization may be performed during DTS2 or pilot sub-carriers, channel estimation and tracking may be performed during DTS2 and payload symbols.”; Fang et al.; 0069)
(“FIG. 8 illustrates a scenario 800 where a stream of Ethernet frames from EPON PHY is fragmented to fill into the allocated PRBs for coax PHY. The stream of Ethernet frames is received from the EPON PHY with a bit-stream based transmission channel and they are to be converted and forwarded to the coaxial cable with a symbol-based transmission channel. In the coax segment, a symbol denotes an OFDM symbol with a typical duration of 8 microseconds. Each symbol may be divided into multiple PRBs where each PRB is formed by a group of sub-carriers. Each symbol in a downstream frame may carry data for multiple CNUs. That is, each group of sub-carriers in a symbol may carry data for a different CNU. This allocation of PRBs to CNUs is specified in a DL-MAP. The number of bits that can be loaded in an allocation for a CNU may be determined by the modulation profile of each sub-carrier in a symbol, the number of sub-carriers in each sub-carrier group, the number of sub-carrier groups assigned which in turns depends on the maximum number of CNUs that has data for the symbol simultaneously.”; Fang et al.; 0056)
(where
“In a downstream frame, there are pilots located in the PRB which are specified in a DL-MAP. There may be 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 24 MHz OFDM channel and 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 120 MHz OFDM channel”/” The stream of Ethernet frames is received from the EPON PHY with a bit-stream based transmission channel and they are to be converted and forwarded to the coaxial cable with a symbol-based transmission channel. In the coax segment, a symbol denotes an OFDM symbol” maps to “generating orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveforms”,
“24 MHz OFDM channel”/” There may be 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 24 MHz OFDM channel and 1 to 2 pilot sub-carriers in a 120 MHz OFDM channel” maps to “the OFDM waveforms comprising an …channel”,
“a 24 MHz OFDM channel. Each downstream frame includes a Downstream Training Sequence (DTS) 1510 and 75 payload symbols 1520. There are two sequences in DTS 1510, a first sequence DTS1 1530 and a second sequence DTS2 1540. DTS1 1530 is a Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequence and may be 1 or 32 OFDM symbols in length. DTS2 1540 is a ZC sequence of 1 OFDM symbol plus CP in length. Each payload symbol comprises 1024 sub-carriers with 16 continuous PRBs where each PRB comprises 64 continuous sub-carriers. In a downstream frame, there are pilots located in the PRB which are specified in a DL-MAP”/FIG. 15 maps to “…channel occupying the allocated plurality of PRBs”
transmitting the generated OFDM waveforms over at least the RF-capable wireline infrastructure, the transmitting of the generated OFDM waveforms comprising delivering the … data, via the … channel, to the respective ones of the recipient devices.
(where
“forwarded to the coaxial cable with a symbol-based transmission channel. In the coax segment, a symbol denotes an OFDM symbol” maps to “transmitting the generated OFDM waveforms over at least the RF-capable wireline infrastructure”,
“Each symbol in a downstream frame may carry data for multiple CNUs. That is, each group of sub-carriers in a symbol may carry data for a different CNU.”/”channel” Maps to “the transmitting of the generated OFDM waveforms comprising delivering the … data, via the … channel, to the respective ones of the recipient devices”, where “data” maps to “…data”, “channel” maps to “via the…channel”, “data for a different CNU” maps to “respective ones of the recipient devices”
Fang et al. teaches converting a EPON PHY bit stream to OFDM symbols for transmission over a channel associated with PRBs, where data is delivered to different CNUs.
Fang et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
Internet-of-Things (IoT)
loT [data]
IoT [channel]
However, Sarda et al. further teaches an IoT capability which includes:
Internet-of-Things (IoT)
loT [data]
IoT [channel]
(“For example, a CPE device 110 may include a set-top box (STB), multimedia gateway device, IP (Internet protocol) client device, modem, router, wireless extender, tablet, computer, mobile device, Internet of things (IoT) device, and/or any other device configured to receive and/or deliver a service to a subscriber.”; Sarda et al.; 0013)
(where
“IoT” maps to “IoT”
Sarda et al. teaches a CPE is analogous to a IoT device
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the IoT capability of Sarda et al. into Fang et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Fang et al. to include the IoT capability as taught by the processing/communications of Sarda et al., the benefits of improved end to end fiber/coaxial system (Fang et al.; 0006) with improved system (Sarda et al.; 0005) are achieved.
As to claim 38:
Fang et al. discloses:
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated first OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of computerized premises devices disposed at respective ones of the different premises, each of the plurality of computerized premises devices in signal communication with one or more … devices.
(“FIG. 8 illustrates a scenario 800 where a stream of Ethernet frames from EPON PHY is fragmented to fill into the allocated PRBs for coax PHY. The stream of Ethernet frames is received from the EPON PHY with a bit-stream based transmission channel and they are to be converted and forwarded to the coaxial cable with a symbol-based transmission channel. In the coax segment, a symbol denotes an OFDM symbol with a typical duration of 8 microseconds. Each symbol may be divided into multiple PRBs where each PRB is formed by a group of sub-carriers. Each symbol in a downstream frame may carry data for multiple CNUs. That is, each group of sub-carriers in a symbol may carry data for a different CNU. This allocation of PRBs to CNUs is specified in a DL-MAP. The number of bits that can be loaded in an allocation for a CNU may be determined by the modulation profile of each sub-carrier in a symbol, the number of sub-carriers in each sub-carrier group, the number of sub-carrier groups assigned which in turns depends on the maximum number of CNUs that has data for the symbol simultaneously.”; Fang et al.; 0056)
Fang et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
loT [devices]
However, Sarda et al. further teaches an IoT capability which includes:
loT [devices]
(“For example, a CPE device 110 may include a set-top box (STB), multimedia gateway device, IP (Internet protocol) client device, modem, router, wireless extender, tablet, computer, mobile device, Internet of things (IoT) device, and/or any other device configured to receive and/or deliver a service to a subscriber.”; Sarda et al.; 0013)
(where
“IoT” maps to “IoT”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the IoT capability of Sarda et al. into Fang et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Fang et al. to include the IoT capability as taught by the processing/communications of Sarda et al., the benefits of improved end to end fiber/coaxial system (Fang et al.; 0006) with improved system (Sarda et al.; 0005) are achieved.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. US 20130322882 (U.S. Patent Documents citation #108, listed on IDS dated 2024-07-29) in view of Sarda et al. US 20190058757 (cited in Non-Final Rejection dated 4/29/2026) and in further view of Campos et al. US 20160013855 (U.S. Patent Documents citation #123, listed on IDS dated 2024-07-20).
As to claim 39:
Fang et al. as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated first OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of IoT devices capable of receiving and demodulating the OFDM waveforms in a prescribed transmission band.
However, Sarda et al. further teaches an IoT capability which includes:
loT [devices]
(“For example, a CPE device 110 may include a set-top box (STB), multimedia gateway device, IP (Internet protocol) client device, modem, router, wireless extender, tablet, computer, mobile device, Internet of things (IoT) device, and/or any other device configured to receive and/or deliver a service to a subscriber.”; Sarda et al.; 0013)
(where
“IoT” maps to “IoT”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the IoT capability of Sarda et al. into Fang et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Fang et al. to include the IoT capability as taught by the processing/communications of Sarda et al., the benefits of improved end to end fiber/coaxial system (Fang et al.; 0006) with improved system (Sarda et al.; 0005) are achieved.
However, Campos et al. further teaches an Freq F1’/Modulation De-Mapping capability which includes:
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting at least portions of the generated first OFDM waveforms to respective ones of a plurality of … devices capable of receiving and demodulating the OFDM waveforms in a prescribed transmission band.
(see FIG. 4B)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the IoT capability of Sarda et al. into Fang et al. By modifying the processing/communications of Fang et al. to include the IoT capability as taught by the processing/communications of Sarda et al., the benefits of improved design (Campos et al.; 0055) with improved system (Sarda et al.; 0005) are achieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 46 and 49-53 and 57-58 is/are allowed.
Examiner Notes
Claims 40-45 and 54-56 are objected, but do not have a prior art rejection.
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 MICHAEL K PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-1037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-10am, 1pm-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
MICHAEL K. PHILLIPS
Examiner
Art Unit 2464
/MICHAEL K PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights