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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0361834 A1) in view of Techslang (Techslang, “What is Small Form-factor Pluggable (SPF)?”, 2021) and Rothermel (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0287314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shih teaches in FIG. 2 a signal adapter device (signal transmission device 1), the signal adapter device comprising: an input interface (the left-hand side of device 1); a transceiver (signal conversion circuit 16), coupled to the input interface, configured to receive a first data signal (control signal CS) through the input interface, and convert the first data signal into a second data signal; a boost circuit (boost converter 12), coupled to the input interface, configured to receive a first supply power having a first voltage (VIN) through the input interface, and convert the first supply power into a second supply power (BVIN) having a second voltage, wherein the second voltage is greater than the first voltage (Shih teaches in paragraph [0012] that the boost converter converts a input voltage of 19 volts to an output voltage of 48 volts); a mixing circuit (ethernet power circuit 14), coupled to the transceiver and the boost circuit, configured to mix the second data signal and the second supply power into an output signal; and an output interface (the right-hand side of device 1), coupled to the mixing circuit, configured to output the output signal. The difference between Shih and the claimed invention is that Shih does not teach a small form-factor pluggable, wherein a power provided by the signal adapter device complies to an SFP module protocol SFF-8419. Techslang teaches small form-factor pluggable (SFP). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Techslang with the system of Shih because SFP is small and has a standard size that can easily be plugged into commercial products that support SFP connections such as switches and routers. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the signal transmission device 1 of Shih in a SFP, as taught by Techslang.
The combination of Shih and Techslang still fails to teach that a power provided by the signal adapter device complies to an SFP module protocol SFF-8419. Rothermel teaches in FIG. 1 small form factor (SFF) connector 118 and pluggable connector 108. Rothermel teaches in paragraph [0068] that the mixed-signal connector 118, and therefore the connector 108, may comply to SFF-8419, SFP+ Power and Low Speed Interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Rothermel with the modified system of Shih and Techslang because the standard SFF-8419 is specified for SFP. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comply to the standard SFF-8419, as taught by Rothermel, in the modified system of Shih and Techslang.
Regarding claim 2, Shih teaches in FIG. 2 a boost converter 12.
Regarding claim 8, Shih teaches in paragraph [0013] that the cable CB can be an RJ45 cable.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang and Rothermel as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Bhagwat (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0342123 A1).
Shih, Techslang and Rothermel have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2 and 8. The difference between Shih, Techslang and Rothermel and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang and Rothermel do not teach that the mixing circuit is an inductive coupling circuit. Bhagwat teaches in FIG. 4 an inductive coupling circuit for power over data line (PoDL) system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bhagwat with the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel because Bhagwat teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Shih, Techslang and Rothermel, and the inductive coupling circuit suppresses common mode noise. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use inductive coupling, as taught by Bhagwat, in the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang and Rothermel as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0074720 A1).
Shih, Techslang and Rothermel have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2 and 8. The difference between Shih, Techslang and Rothermel and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang and Rothermel do not teach that the mixing circuit is a power injection circuit configured to inject the second supply power into the second data signal to generate the output signal. Brown et al. teaches in FIG. 6 a network adapter 600 comprising a PoE power injection circuit 617 for injecting a DC voltage on top of a signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Brown et al. with the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a power injection circuit as a mixing circuit, as taught by Brown et al., in the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang and Rothermel as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Texas (Texas Instruments, “TPS65131-Q1 Positive- and Negative-Output DC-DC Converter”, 2017).
Shih, Techslang and Rothermel have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2 and 8. The difference between Shih, Techslang and Rothermel and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang and Rothermel do not teach that the first voltage is 3.3 volts, and the second voltage is 15 volts. It is understood that the values of first voltage and the second voltage depend upon the applications. Texas teaches a DC-DC converter with an output voltage of 15V and an input voltage in the range of 2.7 V to 5.5 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Texas with the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a boost circuit with an input voltage of 3.3 volts and an output voltage of 15 volts, as taught by Texas, in the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas as applied to claims 5 above, and further in view of Agilent et al. (Agilent et al., “Small Form-factor Pluggable (SFP) Transceiver MultiSource Agreement (MSA)”, September 2000).
Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas have been discussed above in regard to claim 5. The difference between Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas do not teach that an output power of the output signal is greater than 0.54 watts. Agilent et al. teaches on page 22, note 8) that the maximum supply current is 300 mA at 3.3 V, this gives an input power of 0.99 watts. Texas teaches on page 17, FIG. 7 that the conversion efficiency is above 70% if the current is higher than 20 mA, which implies that the output power is greater than 0.69 watts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Agilent et al. with the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas because the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas is a SFP device which must comply to Agilent et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an output power greater than 0.54 watts, as taught by Agilent et al., in the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Texas.
Claim(s) 7, 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang and Rothermel as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Siddhaye et al. (U.S. Patent 9,052,482 B1).
Shih, Techslang and Rothermel have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2 and 8. The difference between Shih, Techslang and Rothermel and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang and Rothermel do not teach that the input interface comprises an SFP male connector or an SFP female connector, and the first data signal is an optical signal. Siddhaye et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an interface converter 120 for connecting between a switch 110 and a network device 130. The interface converter is connected to an Ethernet port 125 of the switch 110 via a first interface and the second interface is an optical port with a pluggable connector such as SFP as illustrated in FIG. 5 that a user may insert a pluggable optical transceiver (see col. 5, lines 36-38) which receives an optical signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Siddhaye et al. with the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel because the example provided by Siddhaye et al. would be a useful application of the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified system of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel in an application for connecting a switch to a network device by using an optical transceiver, as taught by Siddhaye et al.
Regarding claim 9, Siddhaye et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a switch, a network terminal equipment 130 and a signal adapter device 120 coupled to the switch and the network terminal equipment. The combination of Shih, Techslang and Rothermel teaches the limitations related to the signal adapter device. The Examiner notes that it is obvious that the switch uses SFP interface which has an optical signal, and the network device uses Ethernet interface.
Regarding claim 10, Shih teaches in FIG. 2 a boost converter 12.
Regarding claim 15, it is obvious that the switch uses SFP interface which has an optical signal, and the network device uses Ethernet interface.
Regarding claim 16, Shih teaches in paragraph [0013] that the cable CB can be a RJ45 cable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. as applied to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Bhagwat (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0342123 A1).
Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16. The difference between Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. do not teach that the mixing circuit is an inductive coupling circuit. Bhagwat teaches in FIG. 4 an inductive coupling circuit for power over data line (PoDL) system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bhagwat with the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. because Bhagwat teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al., and the inductive coupling circuit suppresses common mode noise. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use inductive coupling, as taught by Bhagwat, in the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. as applied to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0074720 A1).
Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16. The difference between Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. do not teach that the mixing circuit is a power injection circuit configured to inject the second supply power into the second data signal to generate the output signal. Brown et al. teaches in FIG. 6 a network adapter 600 comprising a PoE power injection circuit 617 for injecting a DC voltage on top of a signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Brown et al. with the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a power injection circuit as a mixing circuit, as taught by Brown et al., in the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. as applied to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Texas (Texas Instruments, “TPS65131-Q1 Positive- and Negative-Output DC-DC Converter”, 2017).
Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 7, 9-10 and 15-16. The difference between Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. do not teach that the first voltage is 3.3 volts, and the second voltage is 15 volts. It is understood that the values of first voltage and the second voltage depend upon the applications. Texas teaches a DC-DC converter with an output voltage of 15V and an input voltage in the range of 2.7 V to 5.5 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Texas with the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a boost circuit with an input voltage of 3.3 volts and an output voltage of 15 volts, as taught by Texas, in the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel and Siddhaye et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Agilent et al. (Agilent et al., “Small Form-factor Pluggable (SFP) Transceiver MultiSource Agreement (MSA) September 2000).
Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas have been discussed above in regard to claim 12. The difference between Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas and the claimed invention is that Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas do not teach that an output power of the output signal is greater than 0.54 watts. Agilent et al. teaches on page 22, note 8) that the maximum supply current is 300 mA at 3.3 V, this gives an input power of 0.99 watts. Texas teaches on page 17, FIG. 7 that the conversion efficiency is above 70% if the current is higher than 20 mA, which implies that the output power is greater than 0.69 watts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Agilent et al. with the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas because the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas is a SFP device which must comply to Agilent et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an output power greater than 0.54 watts, as taught by Agilent et al., in the modified system of Shih, Techslang, Rothermel, Siddhaye et al. and Texas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “Techslang does not mention or explain specific industry standard specifications or protocols regarding SFP modules, such as the SFF-8419 protocol. In this regard, claims 1 and 9 are amended to specify ‘wherein a power provided by the signal adapter device complies to an SFP module protocol SFF-8419’. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 include features not disclosed nor taught by Shih and Techslang, and should be allowable.”
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Rothermel teaches in paragraph [0068] that the mixed-signal connector 118, and therefore the connector 108, may comply to SFF-8419, SFP+ Power and Low Speed Interface.
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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl27 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights