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 Objections
Claims 1- 5, 7-19, 21-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9, please insert “at least one internal” before each occurrence of “power amplifier” for consistency with antecedent in line 5; claim 1, line 10, is the limitation “bi-directional Radio Frequency (RF) amplifier” the same as recited in the preamble? If so, please amend to refer back to make use of the antecedent.
As per claim 7-9, respectively, with respect to “the power amplifier”, see claim 1.
As per claim 13, lines 4-6, use proper spacing in each “b)a”, “c)at”, and “d)an”, respectively. Claim 13, line 7, please insert “analog or digital” before “radio”. Claim 13, lines 8-9, is the limitation “bi-directional Radio Frequency (RF) amplifier” the same as the amplifier recited in the preamble? If so, please amend to refer back to make use of the antecedent.
As per claim 21, se claim 1.
Any claim whose base claim is objected is likewise objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13, line 12 “the Distributed Antenna System” lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 the limitation “the Distributed Antenna System enclosures” lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21, last line “the system” lacks of proper antecedent basis.
Claims 14, 16-19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “one of analog or digital radio frequency signal filter is adapted to receive updates of software enabled during manufacture”. However, the specification as filed does not provide support for such limitation as claim. The specification at para. [0048] teaches “the digital filters” are adapted to receive updates of software enabled during manufacture.
As per claim 12, see claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 15-19 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al US 20190312561 in view of Volpi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US2004/0174900 A1 further in view of Getto et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20190068301 A1.
As per claim 1, Li et al teaches a Bi-directional amplifier (note that the limitation “for a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) for providing distributed communication between persons and fire apparatus throughout a building or environment” is merely intended use and is not required for patentability) (fig. 2) as comprising :one (unitary) housing having surfaces (walls) adapted to allow communication therethrough (a port is provided through the walls to allow communication to take place) (see at least abstract); at least one internal power amplifier (140 and 142, collectively), an analog RF signal filter 160; an external primary power source providing power via port 190. Li et al teaches that the circuit that includes the component of the bidirectional amplifier i. e., the power amplifier (140 and 142) and the signal filter 160, all are provided with the housing (note the description of fig. 2 and the abstract). However, it fails to teach an internal power backup integrated with the housing. It also fails to teach providing distributed communications by a distributed antenna system between persons and fire safety apparatus. Volpi et al (7A) ,teaches a power amplifier (715) provided with an internal power backup (743, see para. [0048]). Furthermore, as evidence by KR20140113183 A the translated abstract, it is common practice to incorporate a UPS and a battery in a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate an internal power back up and combination with a UPS in the bidirectional amplifier of Li et al in order to provide back-up power for the system in case of power failure as generally taught by Volpi et al (see at least claim 10). Getto et al further teaches the additional limitations of providing distributed communications by a distributed antenna system (DAS) (including a BDA) between persons (28) and fire safety apparatus (14) (fig. 2 and para. [0022] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to include such teaching in Li et al so as to monitor the passive component such as the amplifier as generally taught by Getto et al para. [0002].
As per claim 2, as evidence by (US 20220052544 A1), it is generally known for an apparatus to include a battery management system (110), a battery charger(116), and controller ( see para. [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate a battery management system , a battery charger, and controller in Li et al in order to increase charging efficiency. In addition, as evidence by US 8,441,798 col. 2, lines 6-13, DIN rail is widely used to mount electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify the teaching Li et al and Volpi et al by mounting the battery management system, the charger and the controller on a platform that includes DIN in order to quickly and easily mount components of communication devices (see US 8,441,798 col. 2, lines 6-13). It is further known in at least US20150076905A1 (fig. 1) to provide a controller within a UPS. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified the Li et al and Volpi et al by providing a controller combined in a UPS in order to increase charging efficiency.
As per claim 3, Li et al further teaches the apparatus includes one “port” (aperture) adapted for providing electrical communications therethrough (note at least the abstract).
As per claim 4, as evidence by US20210250095 A1 (fig. 3 and para. [0035]), it is well known in the art to provide a port (aperture) adapted for providing fiber optic communications therethrough. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Li et al by providing a port (aperture) adapted for providing fiber optic communications therethrough and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, as evidence by US20250096732 A1, para. [00248], it is generally known to use a material (plastic) to communicate wirelessly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to use a material (plastic) to communicate wirelessly and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, as evidence by WO 2024172871 , para. [0043] and [0037], it is well known in the art to amplify at least one band and with a power rating of at least 0.1 Watts . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify Li et al and Volpi et al to amplify at least one band and with a power rating of at least 0.1 Watts and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, as evidence by WO 2024172871 , para. [0043] and [0037], it is well known in the art to amplify a single and a dual bands. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify Li et al and Volpi et al to amplify a single and a dual bands and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1 above.
As per claim 9 , as evidence by CN 110764068, page 5 of the translated document, paragraph starting with “the special test”, it is generally known to operate a power amplifier in a range between 30 to about 40,000MHz (note 1-18GHz and 18-40GHz are between 30 to about 40,000MHz for telecommunication and reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to operate a power amplifier in a range between 30 to about 40,000MHz and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1 above.
As per claim 10, Li et al teaches in para. [0071] that the signal filter is lowpass filter and fails to explicitly teach the lowpass filters are implemented using digital filters. As evidence by the machine translation of AU2004250726 A1, it is well known to implement lowpass filters as digital filters reciting at page 4 “lowpass filter 7 is in the form of a digital filter”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the signal filter (lowpass filter) as digital filters so as to allow implementation in an integrated circuit (IC) ( AU2004250726 A1 page 4).
As per claim 11, as evidence by US 5,959,500, col. 10, lines 53-57 or US20110090998, para. [0046], it is generally known to enable software update a filter seemingly during the manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to update the filter during manufacture of the Bi directional amplifier in order to improve the operation of the filter.
As per claim 12, as evidence by US 20220360957, para. [0046, or US20110090998, para. [0046], it is generally known to enable software update a filter seemingly during the manufacturing process . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to update the filter in the field through downloads within a distributed antenna system Bi directional amplifier in order to improve the operation of the filter.
As per claim 15, as evidence by KR20140113183 A the translated abstract, it is generally known to connect a UPS with a lithium battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to connect an array of lithium battery with a UPS for convenience of use and efficiency (KR20140113183 A the translated abstract). As per claim 15, the limitation of “so as to materially reduce the size and weight of the DAS enclosures” is merely an intended result and does not carry any patentable weight.
As per claim 16, see rejection of claim 15. In addition, it is the nature of the UPS to provide power, current, voltage, charge and discharge and alarm characteristics of the lithium battery.
As per claim 17, as evidence by KR20070091511A, see English translation of the claim section, it is generally known to configure the amplifier to communicate externally of the housing wirelessly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to configure the amplifier to communicate externally of the housing wirelessly, and the motivation do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 15 above.
As per claim 18, see claim 17. In addition, as evidence by US 6,028,684, (fig. 2 shows amplifier 79 provided external to housing 72 ), it is generally known to use fiber optic cable (fig. 2) to provide external communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to configure the amplifier to communicate externally of the housing by at least one fiber optic cable and the motivation would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 15.
As per claim 19, as evidence by US9,584,869, claim 1, it is generally known to provide a converter to convert a signal from the optical fiber cable to a radio frequency signal and vice-versa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate a converter in Li et al to convert a signal from the optical fiber cable to a radio frequency signal in order to satisfy the requirement of the system to translate the signal from optical to electrical and vice versa as desired.
As per claim 22, the at least one internal power amplifier comprises two internal power amplifier 140 and 142.
As per claim 23, see rejection of claim 1. In addition, Getto teaches a monitor (alarm) 14 for indicating failure modes of at least one component para. [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Li et al so that a user can identify a problem associated with a specific component as desired (Getto et al para. [0025]).
As per claim 24, see rejection of claim 23, In addition, Getto shows a cellular phone (26) connected to the monitor (alarm) (14)(as known in the art, cell phone includes an alarm and battery level display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate an alarm connected to an external alarm and battery level display on a unitary housing and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 23 above.
As per claim 25, see rejection of claim 24. In addition, as known in the art, a cell phone includes a visible indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate an alarm connected to an external alarm and battery level display on a unitary housing with a visible indicator and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 24 above.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al US 20190312561 in view of Volpi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US2004/0174900 A1.
As per claim 13, Li et al teaches a Bi-directional amplifier (fig. 2) as comprising :one (unitary) housing having surfaces (walls) adapted to allow communication therethrough (a port is provided through the walls to allow communication to take place) (see at least abstract); at least one internal power amplifier (140 and 142, collectively), an analog RF signal filter 160; an external primary power source providing power via port 190. Li et al teaches that the circuit that includes the component of the bidirectional amplifier i. e., the power amplifier (140 and 142) and the signal filter 160, all are provided with the housing (note the description of fig. 2 and the abstract). However, it fails to teach an internal power backup integrated with the housing. It also fails to teach that the internal electrical backup power source comprises a lithium-ion battery. Volpi et al (7A), teaches a power amplifier (715) provided with an internal power backup (743, see para. [0048]). Furthermore, as evidence by KR20140113183 A the translated abstract, it is common practice to incorporate a UPS and a battery in a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate an internal power back up and combination with a UPS in the bidirectional amplifier of Li et al in order to provide back-up power for the system in case of power failure as generally taught by Volpi et al (see at least claim 10). In addition, as evidence by US20250158075 A1, para [0005], it is generally known to implement a battery using lithium-ion battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the internal electrical backup power source as lithium-ion battery in order to provide back-up power for the system in case of power failure as generally taught by Volpi et al (see at least claim 10). In addition, the limitation “thereby to significantly reduce the size and weight taken up by the backup battery within the distributed antenna system” is merely an intended result and does not carry any patentable weight.
As per claim 14, as evidence by US20250158075 A1, para [0005], it is generally known to implement a lithium-ion battery using Lithium manganese oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the lithium-ion battery as Lithium manganese oxide and the motivation would have been the same as provided above with respect to claim 13.
As per claim 21, Li et al teaches a Bi-directional amplifier (fig. 2) as comprising :one (unitary) housing having surfaces (walls) adapted to allow communication therethrough (a port is provided through the walls to allow communication to take place) (see at least abstract); at least one internal power amplifier (140 and 142, collectively), an analog RF signal filter 160; an external primary power source providing power via port 190. Li et al teaches that the circuit that includes the component of the bidirectional amplifier i. e., the power amplifier (140 and 142) and the signal filter 160, all are provided with the housing (note the description of fig. 2 and the abstract). However, it fails to teach an internal power backup integrated with the housing. It also fails to teach a battery management system for providing electrical connection to other components of the system, all enclosed by unitary housing. Volpi et al (7A), teaches a power amplifier (715) provided with an internal power backup (743, see para. [0048]). Furthermore, as evidence by KR20140113183 A the translated abstract, it is common practice to incorporate a UPS and a battery in a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate an internal power back up and combination with a UPS in the bidirectional amplifier of Li et al in order to provide back-up power for the system in case of power failure as generally taught by Volpi et al (see at least claim 10). In addition, as evidence by (US 20220052544 A1), it is generally known for an apparatus to include a battery management system (110) for providing electrical connection to other components of the system ( see at least fig. 1), all enclosed within one (unitary) housing 106. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate a battery management system in Li et al in order to increase charging efficiency of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is alleged that Li et al teaches a Bi-directional amplifier for use in CATV networks as a result does not require an external power source and internal electrical backup power source. Examiner disagrees. At least, at para. [0009] it is noted that Li et al is directed as well to data communications between a service provider/ other entity and communication devices ( “data communications from a service provider”[para. 0009]; Further in para. [0009], it further teaches that the communication devices include not limited to televisions “Such devices may include, but need not be limited to: televisions, modems, telephones, computers, and/or other communications devices known in the art”; and further in para. [0020], it teaches that the output 105 of the amplifier is coupled to service provider or other entity when it recites “output to a service provider or other entity in communication with RF input port 105”). Hence, the BDA of Li et al is not only directed to CATV but to communication devices such as telephones, computers and the like in communication with “other entity”. The combination to include an external power source and internal electrical backup power source together comprising an uninterruptable power source is desirable among other thing for continuous communication in case of a power failure. Applicant’s comments are in error.
In response to applicant's argument that claim 1 has been amended to introduce in the preamble that the radio frequency amplifier is for a distributed antenna system for providing distributed communication between persons and fire safety apparatus and distinguishes from the prior art, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hence applicant’s comments are in error.
In response to applicant's argument (regarding claim 2) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument (with respect to claim 2) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine was found in the references themselves as follows: 8,441,798 col. 2, lines 10-11; 20220052544 para.[0005] last two lines.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding claim 9, note that the limitations “ for land, sea, air, space military and commercial applications” are merely intended use and do not carry any patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10 are moot in view of the new ground of rejection sets forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 and 12 are not convincing. As evidence in the above rejection, providing a digital filter that can be updated through downloads are generally known . Note, in addition, US20110090998, para. [0046]. Given such a disclosure, one skill in the art would have been motivated to update the filter of Li et al through downloads in the field including DAS for the same reasons provided above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 are not convincing because the additional limitations “thereby to significantly reduce the size and weight taken up by the backup battery within the Distributed Antenna System” are merely an intended result and do not carry any patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 16 for lack of motivation are not convincing as the claim as the rejection includes a motivation to combine the references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, The motivation of convenience of use and efficiency was found in (KR20140113183 A the translated abstract).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 for not being obvious in view of the other limitations recited in the claim are not convincing because the invention as claimed is taught and the art and the combination indicates that Li et al would benefit for implementing the invention to communicate wirelessly for the reason provided in the above rejection of claim 17.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 for not disclosing an housing are not convincing because the prior art to Kirdorf at least at col. 2, line 32 teaches and requires an housing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 are not convincing because proper motivation has been provided in support of the rejection.
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 JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 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 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633