Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on December 05, 2025. Claims 6-14 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. The IDSs submitted on 09/18/25 and 12/18/25 have been entered and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
4. With respect to the objections and rejections (112b) of the previous Office Action, mailed on 09/05/25, have been withdrawn due to proper amendments and/or persuasive arguments.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (103 rejections), see pages 9-14, with regard to independent claims and their dependent claims filed on 12/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “simultaneous operating data links”, “a data links refers to a transmission connection between a transmitter output interface and a receiver” and “parallel structure and cross-coupling”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that the filter (540) of the Beyer reference is not coupled to a second output interface as claimed because there is no second output interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees because as pointed out in the previous rejection Beyer’s Lowpass Filter (Figure 5, Block 540) couped to a second output interface Up-converter (Figure 5, Block 575).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive as the cited references disclose all the limitations as claimed in claims 1-3, thus the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beyer (US 2006/0067429 A1 –Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 1, Beyer teaches a transmission system (Figure 5) comprising: a first transmitter (Figure 5: 500 “OFDM Baseband Transmitter Unit”) coupled to a first output interface for a first data link (Figure 5: 525 “Up-converter (10MHz)”); a second transmitter (Figure 5: 545 “CCK Baseband Transmitter Unit”) coupled to a second output interface for a second data link (Figure 5: 575 “Up-converter (7MHz/8MHz)”); and a multiplexer circuit (Figure 5: 530 “Multiplexer”) configured to switch a signal derived from a first data signal generated by the first transmitter (Paragraph 55: the multiplexer 530 forwards either the signal provided by the upconverter 525 or the signal provided by the upconverter 575) to a filter circuit (Figure 5: 540 “Lowpass Filter”), the filter circuit being coupled to the second output interface (Figure 5: 540 “Lowpass Filter” & 575 “Up-converter (7MHz/8MHz)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
I. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
II. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
III. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
IV. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyer and in view of Song (US 2016/0065395 A1 –Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 2, although Beyer teaches the transmission system of claim 1, Beyer does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter circuit comprises a variable filter characteristic. In a related field of endeavor, Song discloses wherein the filter circuit comprises a variable filter characteristic (Figure 2A: 205, Figure 3: 305 “OMUX”, 310 “Per-bit switcher” & Paragraph 53: if the central filter 215 is a high-pass filter, then the composite filter 205 will be a low-pass filter, and if the central filter 215 is a low-pass filter, then the composite filter 205 will be a high-pass filter, and if the central filter is a low-pass filter with a lowest-frequency pole at a frequency fp, then the composite filter will be a band-pass filter). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beyer’s filter to include a variable filter as in Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to provide equalization, Paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Beyer and Song teaches the transmission system of claim 2. In addition, Song discloses wherein the filter circuit comprises a high pass characteristic (Figure 2A: 205, Figure 3: 305 “OMUX”, 310 “Per-bit switcher” & Paragraph 53: if the central filter 215 is a high-pass filter, then the composite filter 205 will be a low-pass filter, and if the central filter 215 is a low-pass filter, then the composite filter 205 will be a high-pass filter, and if the central filter is a low-pass filter with a lowest-frequency pole at a frequency fp, then the composite filter will be a band-pass filter).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-5 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
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this Final Action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM ET.
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 AIR at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, SAM K. AHN can be reached on (571) 272-3044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633