DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application as originally filed 07/30/2024. The detail office action to the pending claims 1-20 is as shown below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to the Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/14//2026 has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner. Initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US7245129 to Wajcer et al. (“Wajcer”) in view of US20250310663 to Steigerwald et al. (“Steigerwald”) (The remarks and/or references placed in the parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claims 1, 8, Wajcer discloses an apparatus (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: transmitter circuitry (18) having an input and an output (as shown in Fig. 1) ; receiver circuitry (26) having an input coupled to the output of the transmitter circuitry and an output (as shown in Fig. 1); and controller circuitry (16, 50) having an input coupled to the output of the receiver circuitry (see reflection feed line in Fig. 1) and an output coupled to the input of the transmitter circuitry (output of the 16 is towards 18 as shown in Fig. 1); the controller circuitry configured to: instruct the transmitter circuitry to transmit a signal (e.g. Wajcer col. 2, lines 25-35: uses the TDR (controller) mechanism to transmit pulses); and determine, responsive to a voltage received at the output of the receiver circuitry after the transmission of the signal, when a fault exists in a cable coupled to the output of the transmitter circuitry (e.g. Wajcer, col. 2, lines 25-35, transmits pulses, to the receiver, and any resulting signal reflections to be detected are analyzed to generate diagnostic information about the channel; and col. 8, lines 25, the detected reflection signals are direct current (DC) signals having positive and negative portions OR col. 6, line 15-20, the receives signal comprise a signal representing energy from the original transmitted signal that has been reflected back towards the transmitter; and col. 2, lines 25-30, the cable diagnostic mechanism, presented in the invention, enables detection and identification of cables faults).
While Wajcer discloses transmitting, pulses to the receiver, and any resulting signal reflections to be detected are analyzed to generate diagnostic information about the channel and wherein the detected reflection signals are direct current (DC) signals having positive and negative portions, as discussed above, and while it is well within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art to comprehend that DC signals are voltage signals that are constant electrical potentials which cause electric signals to flow in certain directions, the subject matter of claims 1, 8 differs from Wajcer in that Wajcer does not expressly recite the term “voltage” as recited. However, Steigerwald teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said term (see for example, Figs 4-7 and Para [0032] of Steigerwald, which describe, for example, the ECU may include line fault monitoring (LFM) via a voltage divider. The voltage divider can be used to monitor the voltage level on the coaxial cable, and a deviation from the expected voltage range can indicate a fault, such as a short circuit or open circuit. A comparator circuit, then, can be used to compare the divided voltage with a predetermined threshold to trigger a fault signal.) Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Wajcer with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Steigerwald’s teachings or suggestions in order to monitor the voltage level on the coaxial cable, and determined a deviation from the expected voltage range that can indicate a fault (see for example, Figs 4-7 and Para [0032] of Steigerwald). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 8.
RE claim2, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect whether the fault is an open circuit or a short circuit (e.g. Wajcer, col. 2, lines 40-45, … capable of detecting and identifying cable faults, such as open cables, shorted cables; and col. 6, lines 20-25, the transmitted signal may be reflected back due to a channel fault such as an open cable, shorted cable.)
RE claim 3, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller circuitry is configured to detect a location of the fault on the cable (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 60-65, the TDR (controller) generates and transmits a pulse out onto the cable. When the pulse reaches a fault along the cable (i.e. open cable, shorted cable), a portion of the transmitted pulse energy is reflected back. Using knowledge of the propagation speed along the cable the invention estimates the location of the fault.)
RE claim 4, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cable is a coaxial cable (e.g. Wajcer, col. 2, line 25-30:… is a coaxial cable) used to: support bi-directional communications between the apparatus and an external device coupled to the cable (Fig. 1 shows bi-directional communications is supported); and [……].
Wajcer does not expressly disclose the limitation [power the external device], as recited. However, Steigerwald teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said limitation (see for example, Para [0037] of Steigerwald, which describe, the ECU may provide the enable signal to the camera by applying a static DC voltage (i.e., a DC bias) to the coaxial cable). Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Wajcer with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Steigerwald’s teachings or suggestions in order to provide the enable signal by applying a static DC voltage to the coaxial cable (see for example, Para [0037] of Steigerwald). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 4.
RE claim 5, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, as set forth above with the claim’s rejection.
Wajcer does not expressly disclose wherein, the transmitter circuitry implements back-channel communications with the external device by performing serializer operations; and the receiver circuitry supports forward-channel communications with the external device by performing deserializer operations., as recited. However, Steigerwald teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, wherein the transmitter circuitry implements back-channel communications with the external device by performing serializer operations (e.g. Steigerwald, Figs. 4-7 and Para [0022]: implements back channel communications by performing serializer/deserializer (serdes) operations); and the receiver circuitry supports forward-channel communications with the external device by performing deserializer operations (e.g. Steigerwald, Figs. 4-7 and Para [0022]: and reverse channel communication for bi-directional communication via the serdes operations). Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Wajcer with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Steigerwald’s teachings or suggestions in order to provide back channel and reverse channel communications via a serdes operations (see for example, Para [0022] of Steigerwald). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 5.
RE claim 6, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, as set forth above with the claim’s rejection.
Wajcer does not expressly disclose wherein: the transmitter circuitry implements forward-channel communications with the external device by performing serializer operations; and the receiver circuitry supports back-channel communications with the external device by performing deserializer operations, as recited. However, Steigerwald teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, wherein the transmitter circuitry implements forward-channel communications with the external device by performing serializer operations (e.g. Steigerwald, Figs. 4-7 and Para [0022]: implements forward channel communications by performing serializer/deserializer (serdes) operations); and the receiver circuitry supports forward-channel communications with the external device by performing deserializer operations (e.g. Steigerwald, Figs. 4-7 and Para [0022]: and reverse channel communication for bi-directional communication via the serdes operations). Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Wajcer with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Steigerwald’s teachings or suggestions in order to provide for channel and reverse channel communications via a serdes operations (see for example, Para [0022] of Steigerwald). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 6.
RE claim 7, Wajcer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the receiver circuitry further includes: echo cancellation circuitry (48) having a first input coupled to the transmitter circuitry, second input coupled to the output of the transmitter circuitry, and an output (e.g. Wajcer, Fig. 2); equalization circuitry (70) having an input coupled to the output of the echo cancellation circuitry and an output (e.g. Wajcer, Fig. 2); variable gain adapter (VGA) circuitry (64) having an input coupled to the output of the echo cancellation circuitry and an output (e.g. Wajcer, Fig. 2); and slicer circuitry (78) having a first input coupled to the output of the VGA circuitry, a second input, and an output (e.g. Wajcer, Fig. 2).
RE claim 10, Wajcer discloses the controller circuitry of claim 8, further configured to determine: a type of the fault (e.g. Wajcer, col. 2, lines 40-45, detects and identifys cable faults, such as open cables, shorted cables, unmatched loads or any irregularities in the impedance along the cable); and a location of the fault (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 60-65, using knowledge of the propagation speed along the cable, estimates the location of the fault.)
RE claim 11, Wajcer discloses the controller circuitry of claim 10, wherein to determine the type of fault, the controller circuitry is configured to: instruct the transmitter circuitry to transmit a voltage step signal on the cable interface terminal (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 15-20 and lines 55-65, generates and transmits a pulse out signal, representing energy, onto the cable), the voltage step signal to reflect at the fault and travel back towards the device (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 15-20, the transmitted signal may be reflected back due to a channel fault such as an open cable, shorted cable); and measure, using the receiver circuitry, a polarity of the reflected voltage step signal (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 60-67, examining the amplitude and polarity of the reflected signal, it is also able to estimate the impedance of the fault)
RE claim 12, Wajcer discloses the controller circuitry of claim 11, further configured to identify the type of fault as an open circuit responsive to the reflected voltage step signal having a positive polarity (e.g. Wajcer, Fig. 5, col. 6, lines 60-67, by examining the amplitude and the polarity of the reflected signal, the invention is able to estimate the impedance of the fault; and col. 9, lines 55-60, if the identified peak is greater than the high threshold (i.e. positive), then an open cable is declared.)
RE claim 13, Wajcer discloses the controller circuitry of claim 11, further configured to identify the type of fault as a short circuit responsive to the reflected voltage step signal having a negative polarity (e.g. Wajcer, col. 6, lines 60-67, by examining the amplitude and the polarity of the reflected signal, the invention is able to estimate the impedance of the fault; and Fig. 5, col. 9, lines 55-60, if the identified peak is less than the high threshold (i.e. negative), then a shorted cable is declared.)
RE claim 14, Wajcer discloses the controller circuitry of claim 11, wherein to measure the polarity of the reflected voltage step signal, the controller circuitry is configured to compare a magnitude of the reflected voltage step signal to a threshold voltage (e.g. Wajcer, Figs. 3-5B, col. 6, lines 60-67, and col. 9, lines 55-60, compare magnitude of the reflected energy signal to a threshold level).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steigerwald in view of Wajcer (The remarks and/or references placed in the parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claim 18, Steigerwald discloses a system (Fig. 4) comprising: serializer circuitry having an interface terminal (e.g. SER of Figs. 4-7); a cable (e.g. Coax of Figs. 4-7) having: a fault (e.g. Para [0032] includes fault); a first terminal coupled to the interface terminal of the serializer circuitry (e.g. terminal coupled to the interface of the serializer of Figs. 4-7); and a second terminal (e.g. terminal coupled to the interface of the serializer of Fig. 10); and deserializer circuitry having an interface terminal coupled to the second terminal of the cable (e.g. DES of Figs. 4-7, having an interface terminal coupled to the second terminal of the cable), the deserializer circuitry configured to determine: the fault exists within the cable (e.g. Para [0032], monitors the voltage level on the coaxial cable, and determines a deviation from the expected voltage range that can indicate a fault); a type of the fault (e.g. Para [0032], faults such as a short circuit or open circuit); and [….].
Steigerwald does not expressly disclose the limitation [a location of the fault], as recited. However, Wajcer teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said limitation (see for example, Wajcer, col. 6, lines 60-65, the controller generates and transmits a pulse out onto the cable. When the pulse reaches a fault along the cable, a portion of the transmitted pulse energy is reflected back. Using knowledge of the propagation speed along the cable the invention estimates the location of the fault). Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Steigerwald with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Wajcer’s teachings or suggestions in order to estimates the location of the fault (see for example, col. 6, lines 60-65 of Wajcer’). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 18.
RE claim 19, Steigerwald discloses the system of claim 18, wherein: the cable is a Shielded Twisted Pair (e.g. Figs. 4-7 show the cable is a coax (shielded pair)); the system further includes: camera circuitry coupled to an input terminal of the serializer circuitry (e.g. Steigerwald Figs. 4-7 illustrate camera circuitry coupled to an input terminal of the serializer circuitry); and image signal processor (ISP) circuitry coupled to an input terminal of the deserializer circuitry (e.g. Steigerwald Figs. 4-7 illustrate processor (ECU) coupled to an input terminal of the deserializer circuitry); wherein the cable is configured to support bi-directional communication (e.g. Para [0022], supports bidirectional communication) including: forward-channel communications from the ISP circuitry to the camera circuitry (e.g. Figs. 4-7, forward channel to the camera); and back-channel communications from the camera circuitry to the ISP circuitry (e.g. Figs. 4-7, backward channel to the processor).
RE claim 20, Steigerwald discloses the system of claim 19, wherein to detect the existence, type, and location of the fault, the deserializer circuitry is configured to: transmit a signal across the cable using the interface terminal (e.g. Steigerwald, Fig. 3B, para [0039], deserializer (ECU) provides the enable signal to the camera over the coaxial cable); and [….].
Steigerwald does not expressly disclose the limitation [measure a reflected version of the signal at the interface terminal, wherein one or more of an amplitude, polarity, or timing of the measurement is responsive to a characteristic of the fault], as recited. However, Wajcer teaches or fairly suggests, in the same technical field, said limitation. See for example, Wajcer, col. 2, lines 25-35, which describe transmitting pulse signals, to the receiver, and any resulting signal reflections to be detected are analyzed to generate diagnostic information about the channel; and col. 6, lines 60-67 of Wajcer discusses, by examining the amplitude and polarity of the reflected signal, the system is able to estimate the impedance of the fault. Further, col. 2, lines 25-30 of Wajcer, describes the cable diagnostic mechanism, that is configured to enable detection and identification of the cable faults). Hence, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feature/element disclosed by Steigerwald with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification or with Wajcer’s teachings or suggestions in order to estimates the location of the fault (see for example, col. 6, lines 60-65 of Wajcer’). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications and techniques for hybrid beamforming configuration could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method retaining its advantageous function, yielding predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 20.
Objected but Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their respective base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are (See the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)). These prior arts are considered pertinent because they relate generally to the field of data communications and more particularly relates to methods of performing high accuracy cable diagnostics including detection of cable faults, locations and cable length.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU TADESE whose telephone number is (571)272-2478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9 - 5 PM EST).
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, Chieh M. Fan can be reached on 571.272.3042. 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.
/BERHANU TADESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632