DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s claim amendment filed on 12/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1).
Consider claims 1, 8 and 15:
Hasegawa discloses a method (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0056, where Hasegawa describes a method 400 of communication between a receptable and a plug), comprising:
generating, by a first circuit in a first device, a first portion of a signal, the first portion comprising a high pulse and a low pulse (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0024-0025, where Hasegawa describes that the plug 200 outputs a series of pulses shown in 103 as high pulses and low pulses, the pulses are hand shaking pulses, thus a first portion of hand shaking pulses);
coupling the first portion with power to generate coupled data (see paragraph 0009, where Hasegawa describes that a pulse signal has a power level);
transmitting, over an electrical coupling network and via a multi-pin interface comprising a signal pin and a ground pin, the coupled data to a second circuit in a second device (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0025-0026, where Hasegawa describes that the plug 200 outputs the series of pulses to the receptable in device 100 through USB interface; see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0027, where Hasegawa describes that the USB interface includes a signal pin and a ground pin (GND1));
in response to detecting the low pulse of the first portion, generating, by the second circuit, a second portion of the signal (see paragraph 0026, where Hasegawa describes that when the plug 200 is inserted into the receptable in device 100, low energy pulses are detected, and when the low energy pulses are detected, the device 100 generates hand shaking pulses, thus a second portion of hand shaking pulses); and
transmitting, over the electrical coupling network, the second portion to the first circuit (see paragraph 0026, where Hasegawa describes that device 100 sends the generated hand shaking pulses to the plug 100 through terminal pin).
As discussed above, Hasegawa disclose a first portion of hand shaking pulses and a second portion of hand shaking pulses. However, Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the first portion of hand shaking pulses and the second portion of hand shaking pulses are in a data frame.
Bos teaches: pulses in a data frame (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0021, where Bos describes a data frame generator18 which transmits a number of pulses in a data frame 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: pulses in a data frame, as taught by Bos to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to test a transmitter, as discussed by Bos (see paragraph 0001).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Raif et al. (US 8,401,096 B2).
Consider claims 2, 9 and 16:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: generating frame sync data, and generating communication data.
Raif teaches: generating frame sync data (see Fig. 4 and col. 8, lines 57-64, where Raif describes that the generated downlink sub-frame 401 includes a ‘Preamble’ which is used for synchronization of the mobile station with the base station); and generating communication data (see Fig. 4 and col. 8, lines 34-56, where Raif describes that the generated downlink sub-frame 401 includes downlink data bursts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: generating frame sync data, and generating communication data, as taught by Raif to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to have synchronization of the mobile station with the base station, as discussed by Raif (see col. 8, lines 57-64).
Consider claim 4:
Hasegawa in view of Bos and Raif discloses the method of claim 2 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the frame sync data provides an indication to the second circuit that the first portion is transmitted.
Raif teaches: a frame sync data provides an indication to second circuit that a first portion is transmitted (see col. 8, lines 57-64, where Raif describes that the synchronization data of the downlink sub-frame 401 is a ‘Preamble’ of the transmitted downlink data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the frame sync data provides an indication to the second circuit that the first portion is transmitted, as taught by Raif to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to have synchronization of the mobile station with the base station, as discussed by Raif (see col. 8, lines 57-64).
Consider claim 7:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the method of claim 1 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the first portion comprises a first number of encoded symbols, and the second portion comprises a second number of encoded symbols different from the first number of encoded symbols.
Raif teaches: a first portion comprises a first number of encoded symbols (see Fig. 4 and col. 8, lines 45-49, where Raif describes that the downlink sub-frame 401 includes a number of OFDM symbols), and a second portion comprises a second number of encoded symbols different from the first number of encoded symbols (see Fig. 4 and col. 8, lines 45-49, where Raif describes that the uplink sub-frame 403 includes a number of OFDM symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the first portion comprises a first number of encoded symbols, and the second portion comprises a second number of encoded symbols different from the first number of encoded symbols, as taught by Raif to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to allow high speed transmission of data, as discussed by Raif (see col. 1, lines 47-53).
Consider claims 10 and 17:
Hasegawa in view of Bos and Raif discloses the invention of claims 9 and 16 above. Hasegawa discloses: the second portion further comprises the communication data coupled with power (see paragraph 0009, where Hasegawa describes that a pulse signal has a power level).
Claims 5, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1) and Raif et al. (US 8,401,096 B2), as applied to claims 2, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2015/0009984 A1).
Consider claims 5, 11 and 19:
Hasegawa in view of Bos and Raif discloses the invention of claim 2, 8 and 15 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the frame sync data provides an indication to the first circuit of a transmission of the second portion.
Jung teaches: a frame sync data provides an indication to a first circuit of a transmission of a second portion (see paragraph 0056, where Jung describes that a downlink frame synchronization signal is used to determine the transmission time of an uplink signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the frame sync data provides an indication to the first circuit of a transmission of the second portion, as taught by Jung to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to increase transmission/reception efficiency, as discussed by Jung (see paragraph 0003).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1), as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Arbabian et al. (US 2017/0125892 A1).
Consider claims 12 and 18:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the invention of claims 8 and 15 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the filtering circuit is further configured to decouple communication data and power from the first portion of the data frame.
Arbabian teaches: a filtering circuit is configured to decouple communication data and power from a first portion of a data frame (see Fig. 39 and paragraph 0058, where Arbabian describes a receiver circuit which decouples data and power from received signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the filtering circuit is further configured to decouple communication data and power from the first portion of the data frame, as taught by Arbabian to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to allow for a small package for practicality, as discussed by Arbabian (see paragraph 0004).
Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Dai et al. (US 8,467,485 B2).
Consider claim 13:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the integrated circuit of claim 8 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the sampling circuit is configured to provide the first frame sync data to the transmitter circuit, wherein the first frame sync data provides an indication to the transmitter circuit that the first portion is received.
Dai teaches: a sampling circuit is configured to provide a first frame sync data to a transmitter circuit (see Fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-40, where Dai describes that the received downlink frame is sampled by ADC/DAC module 302 which is also part of a transmitter circuit; see Fig. 5-2 and col. 6, lines 50-59, where Dai describes that the downlink frame includes downlink synchronization field SYNC-DL), wherein the first frame sync data provides an indication to the transmitter circuit that a first portion is received (see Fig. 5-2 and col. 6, lines 50-59, where Dai describes that the downlink synchronization field SYNC-DL is received before data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the sampling circuit is configured to provide the first frame sync data to the transmitter circuit, wherein the first frame sync data provides an indication to the transmitter circuit that the first portion is received, as taught by Dai to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to effectively settle conflicts, as discussed by Dai (see col. 3, lines 16-21).
Consider claims 24:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the method of claim 1 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the coupled data and the second portion are transmitted within a same fixed data frame interval.
Dai teaches: a coupled data and a second portion are transmitted within a same fixed data frame interval (see Fig. 5-1 and col. 6, lines 41-64, where Dai describes that a downlink signal DwPTS and an uplink signal UpPTS are transmitted within a same sub-frame, the DwPTS is transmitted in a time slot of 75μs, and the UpPTS is transmitted in a time slot of 125 μs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the coupled data and the second portion are transmitted within a same fixed data frame interval, as taught by Dai to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to effectively settle conflicts, as discussed by Dai (see col. 3, lines 16-21).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2017/0110835 A1) in view of Bos (US 2016/0371164 A1), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Onodera et al. (US 4,443,839).
Consider claims 21-23:
Hasegawa in view of Bos discloses the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 above. Hasegawa does not specifically disclose: the first portion comprises a single-ended communication signal alternative capacitively (AC)-coupled with direct-current (DC) power.
Onodera teaches: a single-ended communication signal alternative capacitively (AC)-coupled with direct-current (DC) power (see the Abstract, where Onodera a signal generated by a single ended converter which includes a capacitor connected with a primary winding that is connected to a DC power via a switching transistor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the first portion comprises a single-ended communication signal alternative capacitively (AC)-coupled with direct-current (DC) power, as taught by Onodera to modify the method of Hasegawa in order to properly set a pulse width, as discussed by Onodera (see the Abstract).
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 LIHONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-5147. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm EST Monday-Friday.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571)272-9018. 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.
/LIHONG YU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631