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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umanskiy et al. (USP 6,556,028).
Regarding claim 1, Umanskiy discloses an architecture in figure 3 that teaches: a high-impedance input (326) configured to observe a signal without disrupting the signal; an analog-to-digital converter 330) configured to digitize the signal (output of 326); and a memory (332) configured to store the digital signal (output of 330) (see figure 3 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 7, Umanskiy teaches: a processor (334) configured to analyze the stored digital signal while the digital signal is being stored (see figure 3 and its descriptions).
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (US 2009/0018458).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses an architecture in figure 1 that teaches: a high-impedance input (110) configured to observe a signal without disrupting the signal; an analog-to-digital converter 130) configured to digitize the signal (input of 130)); and a memory (140 (see para. 0068, lines5), configured to store the digital signal (output of 130) (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 3, Cao teaches: the high-impedance input comprises two high-impedance inputs (110/input and 110 references) for observing a differential signal (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 4, Cao teaches: two (110s) or more high- impedance inputs configured to measure the signal at two or more corresponding channels (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 5, Cao teaches: the high-impedance input (110) exhibits a floating ground (no ground shown, see figure 1 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 7, Cao teaches: a processor (150) configured to analyze the stored digital signal while the digital signal is being stored (see figure 1 and its descriptions).
(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.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (USP 6,324,602).
Regarding claim 13 Chen discloses signal conversion architecture in figure 5 that teaches: comparing (56) a signal (Vref1, DL1) or to one or more signal signatures to identify a signaling protocol of the signal (output of 56); and decoding (58) the signal (output 56) into a stream of values (D’K(0) .. D’K1) based on the signaling protocol (D’k) (see figure 5 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches: observing the signal without disrupting the signal (see figure 5 and its descriptions).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches: observing the signal on a number of channels (see figure 5 and its descriptions).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2009/0018458) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mende et al. (US 2018/0328964).
Regarding claim 2, Cao fails to teaches high-impedance input exhibits greater than 1 kilovolt of isolation.
While, Mende discloses high input impedance an architecture that high-impedance input exhibits greater than 1 kilovolt of isolation (see para. 0026).
Therefore, it would be an obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling date to implement Mende’s teaching into Cao’s disclosure to satisfy the invention desirer.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umanskiy (USP 6,556,028) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mende et al. (US 2018/0328964).
Regarding claim 2, Umanskiy fails to teaches high-impedance input exhibits greater than 1 kilovolt of isolation.
While, Mende discloses high input impedance an architecture that high-impedance input exhibits greater than 1 kilovolt of isolation (see para. 0026).
Therefore, it would be an obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling date to implement Mende’s teaching into Umanskiy’s disclosure to satisfy the invention desirer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2009/0018458) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 2018/0267639).
Regarding claim 6, Cao fails to teaches the analog-to-digital converter (130) is configured to digitize the signal at a rate that is at least 2 times faster than a data rate of the signal.
While, Han discloses an architecture in figure 1 that teaches the analog-to-digital converter (430) is configured to digitize the signal at a rate that is at least 2 times faster than a data rate of the signal (see para. 0062, 0089,0112).
Therefore, it would be an obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling date to implement Han’s teaching into Cao’s disclosure to satisfy the invention desirer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: compare the stored digital signal to one or more signal signatures to identify a signaling protocol of the signal; and decode the stored digital signal into a stream of values based on the signaling protocol.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: compare the stream of values to one or more communication signatures to identify a communication protocol of the signal; and decode the stream of values into a message based on the communication protocol.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the communication protocol comprises a first communication protocol, wherein the processor is further configured to: encode the message according to a second communication protocol; and provide the encoded message at an output of the device.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the processor is further configured to one or more of: store the message at a memory of the device; summarize the message; store a summary of the message at the memory; provide the summary at an output of the device; perform security analysis on the message; store results of the security analysis at the memory; and provide the results at the output.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: a regeneration-tap circuit; and switches to redirect the signal away from the high-impedance input to the regeneration-tap circuit in response to a determination that the signal is according to a predetermined protocol.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein observing the signal comprises measuring voltage changes of the signal without altering the voltage changes by more than 10%.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein comparing the signal to the one or more signal signatures comprises comparing characteristics of the signal to corresponding characteristics of the one or more signal signatures, the characteristics comprising: a peak-to- peak voltage range, a count of voltage levels, voltages of voltage levels, a count of transitions between voltage levels, transition times, an idle-state voltage, a type of the signal, a number of channels, and a timing synchronization.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: comparing the stream of values to one or more communication signatures to identify a communication protocol of the stream of values; and decoding the stream of values into a message based on the communication protocol.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein comparing the stream of values to the one or more communication signatures comprises comparing characteristics of the stream of values to corresponding characteristics of the one or more communication signatures, the characteristics comprising: header sizes, header content, a data format, payload sizes, function codes, error-check codes, and priority information.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the communication protocol comprises a first communication protocol, the method further comprising encoding the message according to a second communication protocol.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein encoding the message according to the second communication protocol comprises packetizing the message in an Ethernet packet.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: providing the encoded message at an output.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: performing security analysis on the encoded message.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of records, (Cao, Mende, Umanskiy and others) considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: storing the message; summarizing the message; storing a summary of the message; providing the summary at an output; performing security analysis on the message; storing results of the security analysis; and providing the results at the output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845