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 .
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-23 are now pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konz et al. (U.S. patent application publication 20040153870), hereinafter referred to as Konz, in view of Gundrum (U.S. patent 10218397), hereinafter referred to as Gundrum.
As for claim 1, Konz discloses an electrical system comprising:
A first I/O component — Konz discloses a plurality of network devices 18 electrically connected to and adapted to communicate via a network bus 12 (Konz, ¶[0042]; FIG. 1). The network devices include sensors, actuators, audio sources, video sources, computing peripherals, cellular telephones, laptop computers, and handheld computing devices (Konz, ¶[0045]-[0046]). Each network device is an I/O component that transmits signals to, and receives signals from, the network bus (Konz, ¶[0016]).
A plurality of second I/O components — Konz discloses a plurality of additional network devices 18 and a network controller 14, all electrically connected to the network bus 12 for communication (Konz, ¶[0042]-[0043]; FIG. 1). The network controller is also an I/O component that directs communications with the network devices via the network bus (Konz, ¶[0043]).
A first switch on a first signal line connecting the first I/O component to a signal line — Konz discloses at least one bus protection element 94 disposed between each respective network device 18 and the network bus 12, comprising isolation switches 26 capable of being disposed in on and off modes and positioned between the network device’s communications interface and the network bus (Konz, ¶[0018], [0052]; FIG. 2A). The isolation switches are on signal lines connecting each network device to the network bus. Konz further discloses first and second sets of switches 98, 108 in-line with the network bus on either side of each network device connection point (Konz, ¶[0020], [0077]; FIG. 7).
Wherein the first I/O component is electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of second I/O components by placing the first switch in a closed position to form a data path — Konz discloses that upon closing the first set of switches 98 (upon detection of power), the network device associated with the bus protection element is connected to the network bus and can communicate with the network controller and other network devices (Konz, ¶[0077], [0081]-[0082]). The closed switches form a data path for digital communications between the I/O components over the network bus at high data transfer rates (Konz, ¶[0015], [0049]).
Wherein the first I/O component is electrically disconnected from the plurality of second I/O components by placing the first switch in an open position — Konz discloses that the bus protection element can selectively disconnect respective network devices from the network bus by placing the isolation switches in the off (open) mode, thereby halting transmission of signals from the respective network device to the network bus (Konz, ¶[0017]-[0018], [0052], [0055]). When the switches are in the open position, the network device is electrically disconnected from other network devices on the bus.
Konz does not explicitly disclose that the switches are micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) switches, nor does Konz explicitly disclose that the switches are disposed on signal lines diverted from an intermediate signal line with first switches on a first end and second switches on a second end of the intermediate signal line (i.e., the branching topology recited in the claims). Konz’s switches are field effect transistors (FETs) disposed in-line along a linear network bus (Konz, ¶[0052]).
Gundrum teaches a signal switching system comprising:
A plurality of micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) switches having cantilever arms that electrostatically close to complete electrical connections and open to break electrical connections (Gundrum, ¶[0053], [0059], [0065]; FIG. 5);
An intermediate signal line (line 550) that is a common conductive line shared between a first set of MEMS switches and a second set of MEMS switches (Gundrum, ¶[0055]-[0064]; FIG. 5);
First MEMS switches (SW1–SW4) on first signal lines diverted from a first end of the intermediate signal line — each first MEMS switch has a drain coupled to line 550 and a source coupled to a respective input line (661–664), forming signal line branches from the first end of line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIGS. 5, 6A);
Second MEMS switches (SW5–SW8) on second signal lines diverted from a second end of the intermediate signal line — each second MEMS switch has a drain coupled to line 550 and a source coupled to a respective output line (675–678), forming signal line branches from the second end of line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIGS. 5, 6A);
Selective closure of a first MEMS switch and a second MEMS switch forms a signal path from a first line (e.g., 662) through line 550 to a second line (e.g., 677) (Gundrum, ¶[0073]-[0074]);
The MEMS switches provide lower insertion loss, higher dynamic range, and wider frequency bandwidth than competing solid-state switches such as FETs (Gundrum, ¶[0067]-[0068], [0087]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the FET isolation switches of Konz’s bus protection system with the MEMS switches arranged in the branching intermediate-signal-line topology taught by Gundrum to selectively connect and disconnect Konz’s I/O components (network devices) to and from one another. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination because the MEMs switch of Gundrum can be easily implement and the MEMs switch provides power consumption to operate at a smaller voltage than standard, thus noise is also reduced. Furthermore:
Gundrum explicitly teaches that MEMS switches are superior replacements for FET switches in signal path applications, providing lower insertion loss, higher linearity, higher dynamic range, and improved power handling (Gundrum, ¶[0067]-[0068], [0087], [0091]);
Konz explicitly discloses the use of FET switches for selectively connecting and disconnecting I/O devices (Konz, ¶[0052]), and Gundrum teaches that MEMS switches are direct substitutes for FETs in switching applications (Gundrum, ¶[0003]: “MEMS switches may replace field-effect transistors (FETs)”);
Gundrum’s branching topology with an intermediate signal line (line 550) provides an efficient architecture for selectively routing signals between multiple inputs and multiple outputs using fewer components, which would benefit Konz’s system by enabling selective connectivity between multiple network devices through a centralized switching structure rather than individual in-line switches along a bus;
The combination applies a known MEMS switching topology (Gundrum) to selectively connect known I/O devices (Konz) to achieve predictable signal routing results (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)); and
Both references are in the analogous art of selectively switching electrical signal paths between multiple communicating devices using controllable switches.
As for claim 2, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Placing, to selectively form a data path between the first I/O component and a first portion of the plurality of second I/O components, one or more MEMS switches located on a first portion of the number of second signal lines in a closed position, wherein the first portion of the respective number of second signal lines are coupled to the first portion of the plurality of second I/O components —
Gundrum discloses that two or more switches in the second SP4T switch section 501B may be activated to be closed simultaneously, such that a signal from switch section 501A is divided across the number X of M switches selected to be closed simultaneously, where X may be selected to be between 1 and M (Gundrum, ¶[0082]). For example, if switches SW5 and SW7 are closed simultaneously, a data path is formed between the input (first I/O component) and the first portion of second I/O components coupled to output lines 675 and 677 (the first portion of the second signal lines) (Gundrum, ¶[0082]; FIG. 6A).
Applied to Konz’s system, selectively closing a first portion of MEMS switches on a first portion of the second signal lines forms a data path between a first network device (first I/O component) and a first portion of additional network devices (first portion of second I/O components) connected to those signal lines.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 3, Konz in view of Gundrum renders obvious the method of Claim 2, as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Placing, while the one or more MEMS switches are in a closed position, one or more MEMS switches located on a second portion of the number of second signal lines in an open position, wherein the second portion of the number of second signal lines are coupled to a second portion of the plurality of second I/O components —
Gundrum discloses that when two or more switches in section 501B are closed simultaneously to divide a signal across those paths, the remaining switches in section 501B remain open (Gundrum, ¶[0053], [0082]). Specifically, Gundrum teaches that “the remaining cantilever arms of the un-activated switches remain open” (Gundrum, ¶[0053]). For example, if SW5 and SW7 are closed (first portion), then SW6 and SW8 remain in the open position (second portion), and the second portion of signal lines (676, 678) coupled to the second portion of second I/O components are disconnected.
Applied to Konz’s system, while a first portion of MEMS switches are closed to connect a first portion of network devices, the remaining MEMS switches (second portion) on second signal lines coupled to a second portion of network devices remain open, thereby maintaining those second I/O components in a disconnected state.
Konz further supports this selective connectivity by teaching that the bus protection elements selectively connect and disconnect respective network devices to and from the network bus (Konz, ¶[0017]), such that some network devices may be connected while others remain disconnected.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 3, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Placing, while the one or more MEMS switches are in a closed position, one or more MEMS switches located on a second portion of the number of second signal lines in an open position, wherein the second portion of the number of second signal lines are coupled to a second portion of the plurality of second I/O components —
Gundrum discloses that when two or more switches in section 501B are closed simultaneously to divide a signal across those paths, the remaining switches in section 501B remain open (Gundrum, ¶[0053], [0082]). Specifically, Gundrum teaches that “the remaining cantilever arms of the un-activated switches remain open” (Gundrum, ¶[0053]). For example, if SW5 and SW7 are closed (first portion), then SW6 and SW8 remain in the open position (second portion), and the second portion of signal lines (676, 678) coupled to the second portion of second I/O components are disconnected.
Applied to Konz’s system, while a first portion of MEMS switches are closed to connect a first portion of network devices, the remaining MEMS switches (second portion) on second signal lines coupled to a second portion of network devices remain open, thereby maintaining those second I/O components in a disconnected state.
Konz further supports this selective connectivity by teaching that the bus protection elements selectively connect and disconnect respective network devices to and from the network bus (Konz, ¶[0017]), such that some network devices may be connected while others remain disconnected.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 4, which recites:
A first number of I/O components — Konz discloses a plurality of network devices 18 (sensors, actuators, computing peripherals, audio/video sources) that communicate via the network bus 12 (Konz, ¶[0042], [0045]-[0046]).
A second number of I/O components — Konz discloses additional network devices 18 and one or more network controllers 14 that communicate with the first number of I/O components via the network bus (Konz, ¶[0042]-[0043]).
An I/O expander comprising — Konz discloses a bus protection element 94 that intermediates between each network device and the network bus, incorporating switches that selectively connect or disconnect the device from the bus (Konz, ¶[0017]-[0018], [0074]; FIG. 7). As modified by Gundrum, the switching structure employs MEMS switches on signal lines branching from both ends of an intermediate signal line (Gundrum, line 550; FIGS. 5, 6A), enabling selective expansion of connectivity between the first number of I/O components and the second number of I/O components. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a device comprising MEMS switches that selectively expands the electrical connectivity between a first set of I/O components and a second set of I/O components through switchable signal paths functions as an “I/O expander.”
First MEMS switches on signal lines diverted from an intermediate signal line, the first MEMS switches operable to selectively connect one of the first number of I/O components to two or more of the second number of I/O components — As taught by Gundrum, MEMS switches SW1–SW4 are on signal lines branching from a first end of intermediate signal line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5). Gundrum further discloses that two or more switches in the second section 501B may be activated to be closed simultaneously, such that a selected input signal from one switch in section 501A is divided across the number of closed switch paths in section 501B (Gundrum, ¶[0082]). Applied to Konz’s network devices, this enables one network device (I/O component) to simultaneously connect to two or more other network devices (I/O components).
A plurality of second MEMS switches on second signal lines diverted from the intermediate signal line, the second MEMS switches operable to selectively connect one of the second number of I/O components to two or more of the first number of I/O components — Gundrum discloses MEMS switches SW5–SW8 on signal lines branching from the second end of line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5). Gundrum further discloses that the transfer switch is bidirectional such that the SP4T switch sections 501A and 501B can reverse their input/output roles under control of the computing device (Gundrum, ¶[0078]-[0080]). In the reverse direction, a signal at one output-side terminal can be routed to multiple input-side terminals. Applied to Konz’s system, this enables bidirectional one-to-many connectivity between I/O components.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claims 5, , Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein the one or more first MEMS switches are configured to selectively connect the first one of the first number of I/O components to the two or more of the second number of I/O components in the absence of a separate electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection circuit coupled thereto so as not to introduce parasitic capacitance associated with the ESD protection circuit —
Gundrum discloses that the bare die MEMS transfer switch is used in an unpackaged configuration specifically to avoid parasitic effects that degrade RF performance, stating that “packaging of electronic components using, for example, plastic or ceramic encapsulation is desirable for a number of reasons, it presents parasitic effects that invariably degrade RF performance. Insertion loss increases and operating frequency bandwidth is reduced” (Gundrum, ¶[0087]). Gundrum’s MEMS transfer switches are designed to minimize parasitic capacitance and insertion loss (Gundrum, ¶[0067]-[0068], [0088]).
The use of bare die MEMS switches that are designed to minimize parasitic capacitance teaches away from incorporating additional circuitry (such as a separate ESD protection circuit) that would introduce additional parasitic capacitance. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Gundrum’s MEMS switches operate in the absence of separate ESD protection circuits so as not to introduce parasitic capacitance, as the entire design philosophy is to minimize parasitic effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the MEMS switches without a separate ESD protection circuit in order to avoid introducing parasitic capacitance that would degrade signal integrity, as taught by Gundrum’s design philosophy of minimizing parasitic effects (Gundrum, ¶[0087]-[0088]).
As for claims 6, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
One or more additional first MEMS switches operable to selectively connect a second one of the first number of I/O components to two or more of the second number of I/O components via respective signal lines to which the one or more additional first MEMS switches are coupled —
Gundrum discloses that the first SP4T switch section 501A includes multiple independently selectable MEMS switches SW1, SW2, SW3, and SW4, each coupled to a different input line (661, 662, 663, 664) (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5). Each switch connects a different input (first I/O component) to line 550. For example, SW1 connects a first input (first one of the first number of I/O components), and SW2 connects a second input (second one of the first number of I/O components) (Gundrum, ¶[0073]-[0078]).
When a different switch in section 501A is selected (e.g., SW2 instead of SW1), the second one of the first I/O components is connected through line 550 to two or more of the second I/O components by simultaneously closing two or more switches in section 501B (Gundrum, ¶[0082]). Thus, SW2 represents the “one or more additional first MEMS switches” that connect the second one of the first I/O components to two or more of the second I/O components.
Applied to Konz’s system, additional MEMS switches enable a second network device to selectively connect to two or more other network devices via the intermediate signal line.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 7, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein the one or more first MEMS switches includes at least two MEMS switches, and wherein the one or more additional first MEMS switches includes at least two MEMS switches —
Gundrum discloses the first SP4T switch section 501A having four MEMS switches SW1–SW4 (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5). In the context of multiple first I/O components, at least two MEMS switches (e.g., SW1 and SW2) are associated with the one or more first MEMS switches connecting a first I/O component to two or more second I/O components, and at least two additional MEMS switches (e.g., SW3 and SW4) are the one or more additional first MEMS switches connecting a second I/O component.
Alternatively, considering the second SP4T switch section 501B, Gundrum discloses that multiple switches (e.g., SW5 and SW6) may be simultaneously closed to connect one input to multiple outputs (Gundrum, ¶[0082]). Thus, there are at least two MEMS switches in the “one or more first MEMS switches” (e.g., two switches in 501B that are closed for the first I/O component’s connectivity), and at least two MEMS switches in the “one or more additional first MEMS switches” (e.g., two different switches in 501B that would be closed for the second I/O component’s connectivity in a subsequent switching configuration).
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claims 9, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein at least one of the first number of I/O components corresponds to a bidirectional I/O component —
Konz discloses that the network devices 18 are capable of both transmitting signals to and receiving signals from the network bus 12 (Konz, ¶[0016]). Each network device includes a communications interface comprising a transmitter for transmitting signals and a receiver for receiving signals (Konz, ¶[0051]). Thus, each network device is inherently a bidirectional I/O component.
Gundrum further discloses that the MEMS transfer switch 500 supports bidirectional communication, and that one or more of the inputs 1112A, 1112B, 1112C, and 1112D may be bidirectional paths (Gundrum, ¶[0078]-[0080], [0105]). Gundrum teaches that “SP4T switch section 501B may be the input side and SP4T switch section 501A may be the output side” (Gundrum, ¶[0078]), and that “the MEMS transfer switch 600A may function as a two-way transfer switch such that line 550 is a bi-lateral (bi-directional) communication line” (Gundrum, ¶[0080]).
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claims 11, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein capacitance of each MEMS switch of the one or more first MEMS switches or each MEMS switch of the plurality of second MEMS switches is lower than a threshold such that each of the one or more first and the plurality of second MEMS switches does not include a separate electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection circuit —
Gundrum discloses that the MEMS transfer switches have a high Ron×Coff figure of merit and provide lower insertion loss and wider operating frequency bandwidth than competing FET switch technology (Gundrum, ¶[0067]-[0068]). MEMS switches inherently have very low off-state capacitance (Coff), which is a fundamental advantage over semiconductor switches (Gundrum, ¶[0087]-[0091]). The low parasitic capacitance of the MEMS switches is sufficiently low that separate ESD protection circuits — which would introduce additional parasitic capacitance — are not included.
Gundrum’s design uses bare die MEMS switches specifically to avoid parasitic effects (Gundrum, ¶[0087]), teaching that the capacitance of the MEMS switches is below a threshold at which additional parasitic-inducing protection circuitry would be warranted. The absence of separate ESD protection circuits in Gundrum’s MEMS switch implementation is evidence that the capacitance is lower than a threshold that would necessitate such protection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the MEMS switches without separate ESD protection circuits, since MEMS switches inherently have low capacitance and the addition of ESD protection circuits would introduce undesirable parasitic capacitance that degrades signal performance, as taught by Gundrum (Gundrum, ¶[0087]-[0088]).
As for claim 13, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein a quantity of the one or more first MEMS switches corresponds to a quantity of the second number of I/O components —
Gundrum discloses that the second SP4T switch section 501B includes four MEMS switches SW5–SW8, each coupled to a respective output line (675–678) leading to a respective second I/O component (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIGS. 5, 6A). The quantity of MEMS switches in section 501B (four) corresponds to the quantity of output lines and thus the quantity of second I/O components (four) connected thereto. Since each output path requires one MEMS switch to connect/disconnect that path, the number of first MEMS switches on the second signal lines (connecting to the second I/O components) equals the number of second I/O components.
Applied to Konz’s system, the number of MEMS switches on the signal lines branching from one end of the intermediate signal line corresponds to the number of network devices (second I/O components) coupled to those respective signal lines.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 14, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein a quantity of the second number of I/O components is greater than a quantity of the first number of I/O components —
Gundrum discloses that N and M (the number of switches in sections 501A and 501B) may vary and need not be equal (Gundrum, ¶[0052]: “N may be 3 and M may be 5”). Thus, the transfer switch may have 3 inputs and 5 outputs, meaning the quantity of the second number of I/O components (5, on the output side) is greater than the quantity of the first number of I/O components (3, on the input side).
Applied to Konz’s system, the I/O expander may be configured with more MEMS-switched signal paths on one side than the other, resulting in a greater number of second I/O components (network devices on one side) than first I/O components (network devices on the other side).
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 15, which recites:
An input/output expander (IOE) comprising — As set forth in the rejection of Claim 4, the combination of Konz’s selective device connectivity system modified with Gundrum’s MEMS transfer switch topology provides an input/output expander that enables selective electrical connectivity between I/O components (Konz’s network devices) through MEMS-switched signal paths branching from an intermediate signal line.
A first number of signal lines diverted to a second number of signal lines on a front end — Konz discloses multiple network devices 18 connected to the network bus 12 (Konz, ¶[0042]; FIG. 1). As modified by Gundrum, on a first side (front end) of the intermediate signal line 550, a first number of signal lines from network devices branch to a second number of signal lines through first MEMS switches (Gundrum, input lines 661–664 branching to switches SW1–SW4 connected to line 550; ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIGS. 5, 6A).
Further diverted to a third number of signal lines on a back end — As taught by Gundrum, on the opposite side (back end) of intermediate signal line 550, the signal path further branches to a third number of signal lines through second MEMS switches (Gundrum, output lines 675–678 branching from switches SW5–SW8 connected to line 550; ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIGS. 5, 6A).
First MEMS switches on the second number of signal lines — Gundrum discloses MEMS switches SW1–SW4 disposed on the front-end branching signal lines (661–664) (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5).
Second MEMS switches on the third number of signal lines — Gundrum discloses MEMS switches SW5–SW8 disposed on the back-end branching signal lines (675–678) (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5).
The first and second MEMS switches operable to connect or disconnect respective signal lines — Gundrum discloses that each MEMS switch is individually controlled by a switch actuator voltage applied to the corresponding gate, causing the cantilever arm to close (connect) or remain open (disconnect) the respective signal line to/from line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0053], [0059], [0065]). Applied to Konz’s system, this enables selective connection and disconnection of network device signal lines to and from the intermediate signal line, thereby connecting or disconnecting the respective I/O components.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 16, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein the interface device further comprises a first number of input/output (I/O) components respectively coupled to the third number of signal lines of the IOE —
Konz discloses a plurality of network devices 18 electrically connected to the network bus 12, wherein the network devices include sensors, actuators, audio sources, video sources, cellular telephones, laptop computers, and handheld computing devices (Konz, ¶[0042], [0045]-[0046]; FIG. 1). Each network device is an I/O component that communicates via the bus. Konz further discloses that network device interfaces 16 are associated with each network device, connecting the network device to the network bus via respective data channels (Konz, ¶[0024], [0046]-[0047]).
As modified by Gundrum, the IOE comprises an intermediate signal line (Gundrum, line 550) with a third number of signal lines (output lines 675-678) branching from a back end thereof through respective MEMS switches SW5-SW8 (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5). I/O components (Konz’s network devices) are respectively coupled to each of these third number of signal lines. Specifically, Gundrum discloses that signal conditioning devices and other components in bank 1121 are respectively coupled to the output lines (675-678) of the second switch section 501B (Gundrum, ¶[0106]; FIG. 11), which when combined with Konz’s teaching, correspond to I/O components (network devices) respectively coupled to the third number of signal lines.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 17, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
A number of first ports on the front end —
Gundrum discloses a first SP4T switch section 501A having input lines (661-664) on the front end that receive signals from respective sources (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058], [0070]-[0073]; FIG. 6A). Each input line constitutes a port on the front end. Gundrum further discloses that the inputs may correspond to ports of an RF front end system (Gundrum, ¶[0105]-[0106]; FIG. 11), with each input (1112A-1112D) functioning as a port.
Applied to Konz’s system, the front-end ports correspond to connection points where first I/O components (network devices or controllers) connect to the switching structure.
A number of second ports on the back end, each port of the number of second ports comprises one or more I/O components of the first number of I/O components —
Gundrum discloses a second SP4T switch section 501B having output lines (675-678) on the back end, each output line constituting a port on the back end (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064], [0074]-[0076]; FIG. 6A). Each output port is coupled to one or more signal conditioning devices or downstream components (Gundrum, ¶[0106]; FIG. 11).
Konz discloses that each network device 18 (I/O component) is associated with a network device interface 16 that connects the network device to the communication bus (Konz, ¶[0046]-[0047]). Each network device constitutes an I/O component at a respective port. Applied to the combination, each port on the back end of the IOE comprises one or more I/O components (network devices) of the first number of I/O components coupled thereto.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 18, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
A first portion of the second number of MEMS switches of the IOE corresponds to one port of the number of second ports —
Gundrum discloses that the second SP4T switch section 501B has switches SW5-SW8, each corresponding to a respective output port (675-678) (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5). A first portion of these MEMS switches (e.g., SW5) corresponds to one port (e.g., output line 675) of the number of second ports on the back end.
A second portion of the second number of MEMS switches of the IOE corresponds to a different port of the number of second ports —
A second portion of the MEMS switches (e.g., SW6) corresponds to a different port (e.g., output line 676) of the number of second ports (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5). Each MEMS switch in section 501B is individually associated with a different output port, such that different portions of the second number of MEMS switches correspond to different ports.
Applied to Konz’s system, different portions of the MEMS switches on the back end of the IOE correspond to different ports through which respective network devices (I/O components) are connected to the intermediate signal line.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 19, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein each port of the number of first ports is simultaneously connectable to a different port of the number of second ports without leaving a single port of the number of first ports or the number of second ports disconnected —
Gundrum discloses that two or more switches may be activated to be closed simultaneously such that a signal is divided across the number of closed switch paths (Gundrum, ¶[0082]). Gundrum further discloses that the transfer switch supports bidirectional operation (Gundrum, ¶[0078]-[0080]) and that the switch sections may be configured with varying numbers of switches (N and M) (Gundrum, ¶[0052]).
In a configuration where the number of front-end ports equals the number of back-end ports (e.g., a 4×4 configuration), all front-end MEMS switches in section 501A and all back-end MEMS switches in section 501B can be simultaneously closed such that each front-end port is connected through line 550 to a different back-end port, with no port left disconnected. The intermediate signal line 550 provides the common connection point through which all ports are simultaneously interconnected (Gundrum, ¶[0055], [0061]).
Konz further teaches the desirability of maintaining all network devices in communication simultaneously, as the network controller issues commands to and receives responses from all connected network devices during normal operation (Konz, ¶[0050], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the MEMS switches such that each front-end port is simultaneously connectable to a different back-end port without leaving any port disconnected, in order to maintain full communication between all I/O components, as taught by Konz’s system operation (Konz, ¶[0050], [0085]).
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 20, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
A first portion of the first number of MEMS switches of the IOE corresponds to one port of the number of first ports —
Gundrum discloses that the first SP4T switch section 501A has switches SW1-SW4, each corresponding to a respective input port (661-664) on the front end (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5). A first portion of these MEMS switches (e.g., SW1) corresponds to one port (e.g., input line 661) of the number of first ports on the front end.
A second portion of the first number of MEMS switches of the IOE corresponds to a different port of the number of first ports —
A second portion of the MEMS switches (e.g., SW2) corresponds to a different port (e.g., input line 662) of the number of first ports (Gundrum, ¶[0054]-[0058]; FIG. 5). Each MEMS switch in section 501A is individually associated with a different input port, such that different portions of the first number of MEMS switches correspond to different front-end ports.
Applied to Konz’s system, different portions of the MEMS switches on the front end of the IOE correspond to different ports through which respective network devices or controllers (I/O components) connect to the intermediate signal line.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 21, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
Wherein each port of the number of first ports on the front end is couplable to an I/O component of one or more hosts —
Konz discloses that the network controller 14 (a host) is electrically connected to the network bus 12 and is adapted to direct communications with the network devices via the network bus (Konz, ¶[0043]; FIG. 1). Konz further discloses that the network controller may be in electrical communication with a host computer 20 that generally directs the operation of the network controller and analyzes data received from the network devices (Konz, ¶[0043]). The host computer and/or the network controller constitute “one or more hosts.”
Konz further discloses a system with first and second network controllers 14a, 14b connected to opposite ends of the network bus (Konz, ¶[0023], [0070]; FIG. 5), representing multiple hosts.
Applied to the combination, each front-end port of the IOE (Gundrum’s input ports 661-664) is couplable to an I/O component of one or more hosts (Konz’s network controllers 14a, 14b and/or host computer 20). The hosts communicate with network devices through the switching structure.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 22, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
An interface controller configured to place a MEMS switch of the first number of MEMS switches in an open position to disconnect a respective signal line of the second number of signal lines —
Konz discloses a network controller 14 and/or a logic element 28 that controllably operates isolation switches to disconnect respective network devices from the network bus by placing the switches in the off (open) mode (Konz, ¶[0017]-[0018], [0053]-[0055]; FIGS. 2A, 7). The logic element is an interface controller that issues control signals to the switches based on monitored conditions.
Gundrum discloses a computing device (interface controller) that issues switch actuator voltage signals to selectively activate or deactivate respective MEMS switches (Gundrum, ¶[0065]-[0066]; FIG. 6A). Specifically, Gundrum discloses that “computing device 605 provides individual switch actuator voltages 606 for each of MEMS switches SW1-SW4 and individual switch actuator voltages 607 for each of MEMS switches SW5-SW8” (Gundrum, ¶[0065]). When the computing device does not apply an actuator voltage to a switch in section 501A, that switch remains in the open position, disconnecting the respective signal line of the second number of signal lines (front-end signal lines 661-664) from line 550.
An interface controller configured to place a MEMS switch of the first number of MEMS switches in a closed position to connect a respective signal line of the second number of signal lines —
Gundrum discloses that the computing device applies a switch actuator voltage to a selected switch (e.g., SW2) to place it in the closed position, thereby connecting the respective signal line (e.g., 662) to line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0065]-[0066], [0073]; FIG. 6A). The computing device thus functions as an interface controller that controllably opens and closes the MEMS switches on the second number of signal lines (front-end lines).
Applied to Konz’s system, the network controller 14 and/or logic element 28 serves as the interface controller that commands the MEMS switches (as taught by Gundrum) to open or close, thereby disconnecting or connecting respective signal lines of the second number of signal lines on the front end of the IOE.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As for claim 23, Konz in view of Gundrum further renders obvious:
An interface controller configured to place a MEMS switch of the second number of MEMS switches in an open position to disconnect a respective signal line of the third number of signal lines —
Konz discloses a network controller 14 and/or a logic element 28 (interface controller) that controllably operates isolation switches to selectively disconnect respective network devices from the network bus by placing the switches in the off (open) mode, thereby halting transmission of signals from the respective network device to the network bus (Konz, ¶[0017]-[0018], [0053]-[0055]; FIGS. 2A, 7). The logic element monitors signals on the network bus and responsively controls the switch states to disconnect devices when appropriate conditions are detected (Konz, ¶[0053]-[0055]).
Gundrum discloses a computing device 605 (interface controller) that provides individual switch actuator voltages 607 for each of MEMS switches SW5-SW8 in the second SP4T switch section 501B (Gundrum, ¶[0065]-[0066]; FIG. 6A). The second SP4T switch section 501B corresponds to the second number of MEMS switches on the back end of the IOE, and the output lines (675-678) correspond to the third number of signal lines. When the computing device does not apply (or removes) the switch actuator voltage to a selected switch in section 501B (e.g., SW6), that MEMS switch remains in or returns to the open position, thereby disconnecting the respective signal line (e.g., output line 676) of the third number of signal lines from the intermediate signal line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0053], [0065]).
An interface controller configured to place a MEMS switch of the second number of MEMS switches in a closed position to connect a respective signal line of the third number of signal lines —
Gundrum discloses that the computing device 605 applies a switch actuator voltage (via signals 607) to a selected MEMS switch in section 501B (e.g., SW7) to electrostatically activate the cantilever arm, placing the switch in the closed position and thereby connecting the respective signal line (e.g., output line 677) of the third number of signal lines to line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0059], [0065]-[0066], [0074]; FIG. 6A). Gundrum teaches that “the computing device 605 provides . . . individual switch actuator voltages 607 for each of MEMS switches SW5-SW8” to individually control each switch’s open or closed state (Gundrum, ¶[0065]).
Applied to Konz’s system, the network controller 14 and/or logic element 28 (Konz, ¶[0053]-[0055]) serves as the interface controller that commands the back-end MEMS switches (as taught by Gundrum’s computing device 605) to individually open or close, thereby disconnecting or connecting respective signal lines of the third number of signal lines on the back end of the IOE to or from the intermediate signal line. This enables the interface controller to selectively connect or disconnect respective I/O components (Konz’s network devices) coupled to the third number of signal lines.
The motivation to combine is the same as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the selective switching control of Konz’s bus protection system using Gundrum’s computing-device-controlled MEMS switches on signal lines branching from an intermediate signal line, because: (1) Gundrum teaches that MEMS switches are superior replacements for FET switches in signal path applications (Gundrum, ¶[0067]-[0068]); (2) Konz teaches the desirability of an interface controller that selectively connects and disconnects I/O devices (Konz, ¶[0017]-[0018]); and (3) Gundrum teaches a computing device that individually controls each MEMS switch’s open/closed state via individual actuator voltages (Gundrum, ¶[0065]-[0066]), providing the same selective connection/disconnection functionality taught by Konz but with the performance advantages of MEMS switches arranged in a branching topology from an intermediate signal line.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Konz’s 1-to-1 topology have been fully considered but are moot because the current office action uses Gundrum to combine to Konz for newly amendment limitations. The rejection is based on the combination of Konz in view of Gundrum. Gundrum explicitly discloses the exact topology applicant argues is missing from Konz:
An intermediate signal line — Line 550 is a common conductive line shared between a first SP4T switch section 501A and a second SP4T switch section 501B (Gundrum, ¶[0055], [0061]; FIG. 5).
A plurality of second MEMS switches on second signal lines diverted from the second end of line 550 — MEMS switches SW5, SW6, SW7, and SW8 are each disposed on a respective signal line (675, 676, 677, 678) that branches from the second end of line 550 (Gundrum, ¶[0060]-[0064]; FIG. 5):
Coupled to a plurality of second I/O components — Each output line (675-678) is coupled to a respective signal conditioning device or downstream component (Gundrum, ¶[0106]; FIG. 11). In the combination with Konz, these downstream components correspond to Konz’s network devices (I/O components).
One-to-many — Gundrum explicitly teaches that “two or more switches may be activated to be closed simultaneously” such that a signal is divided across the number of closed switch paths (Gundrum, ¶[0082]), providing the one-to-many fan-out functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tim Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3642. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 5:30 AM – 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham can be reached on (571)272-1400. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2857
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 ttps://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.
/TIM T VO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights