The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed applicant argues, in substance:
a) In page 10 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Ling et al. (US 2012/0128045 A1), Lazar (US 9146730 B2), and Carter et al. (US 2005/0034115 A1) fails to teach or disclose the limitation “determining, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update for the software module of the second computing device” because in Carter’s system individual devices are matched to configuration filed “based on unique identifiers, not based on a “device type” as claimed.”
In response to argument (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed limitations recite “determining, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update”.
Here, the term “device type” is not defined by the claims nor the specification of the present application, and is therefore broad enough to encompass differences inherent to device manufacturers (vendors). For example, there are many different types of routers in the art, such as CISCO routers, NETGEAR routers, etc., where CISCO and NETGEAR are known router manufacturers. Therefore one could say CISCO routers and NETGEAR routers are different types of routers.
As is well-known in the art, a MAC address contains data that identifies a vendor or manufacturer of a system provided with the MAC address. Carter recites, in ¶[0009], that a “vendor identifier contained in received MAC address is compared to values in a filed of a database” and “a match is found” (i.e., a matching vendor identifier), “the configuration filename corresponding to the received MAC address is sent to the device having that MAC address”. This is done, as recited in ¶[0008], to “provide updates to devices, such as, for example, cable modems.”
That is, what is matched is not a MAC address per se., as argued by applicant, but a modem vendor identifier. Each vendor identifier, as explained above, denotes a different type of modem.
Therefore, the update of Carter is based on a type of a computing device and not merely on a MAC address, as argued.
b) In page 12 of the response filed, applicant argues that the “motivation to combine Kang with Dougall is not supported”.
In response to argument (b), the examiner notes that none of the rejections rely on a combination of “Kang with Dougall”, as argued.
c) In page 13 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Lazar and Carter with Ling “is demonstrative of improper piecemeal examination” because the Office action (dated 3/4/2026) “essentially deconstructs the features of claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 in order to use them as a roadmap to locate each component part in disparate teachings of Ling, Lazar, and Carter”, or, “In other words, the Office Action’s combination of Lazar and Carter with Ling employs improper “hindsight reasoning” that “uses the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components”.
In response to argument (c), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ling et al. (US 2012/0128045 A1) is directed to a system that performs processing to determine how to update a network modem (e.g., updating from DOCSIS 3 to DOCSIS 2, see ¶[0063]).
Lazar (US 9146730 B2) is directed to a system for updating a cable modem from a remote source (col. 4, lines 56-58 and col. 7, lines 21-25).
Carter is directed to a system for updating a cable modem based on a device type of the cable modem (¶[0007]-[0009]).
Therefore, all three references are directed to the field of updating cable modems.
To formulate a proper 35 USC 103 rejection, the references “must be analogous art to the claimed invention”.
The instant application is directed to a system for updating network devices such as a cable modem (see ¶[0029]).
Therefore, all 3 references are analogous to the claimed invention.
A POSITA with access to all 3 references would realize (1) cable modems can be updated based on a determination (Ling), (2) cable modems can be updated remotely (Lazar), and (3), cable modems can be updated based on device type.
It wouldn’t take hindsight reasoning to combine the references because all are analogous to the claimed invention and is therefore reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider what their combination suggests.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12, 15-22, 25-31, and 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 2012/0128045 A1, hereinafter Ling) in view of Lazar (US 9146730 B2), and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2005/0034115 A1, hereinafter Carter).
Regarding claim 1, Ling discloses a method, comprising:
sending, by a first computing device, a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (¶[0030], "customer premise equipment (CPE) must receive several channels distributed throughout the cable spectrum" (i.e., signals, from a second device; ¶[0036], "customer premises equipment (also referred to generally herein as CPE) may include a cable or satellite data modem, gateway or other device residing in the customer premises" - see also ¶[0035] and Fig. 1); ¶[0057], a signal may be a first signal processed prior to a change in a number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], a first mode may be a DOCSIS 3.0 mode - DOCSIS 3.0 requires transmission of signals according to a device type, see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, pages 45-46, section 5.2.5.1, "CMTS has located the CM in the plant topology (i.e., is aware of what downstream channels and upstream channels physically reach the CM [...] the CMTS [...] reserves or activates MAC layer resources based on the service provisioning information that it received)"),
wherein the second computing device processes a first portion of the signal based on a software module of the second computing device (¶[0046], "analog to digital data converter ADC1/2 […] converts the signal via ADC1 and ADC2"; Fig. 4, the output of ADC 1 or 2 is provided to a Digital Baseband Processor DBB1; Fig. 4, ¶[0039], DBB1 includes a MAC processor (MAC1) operating, as shown, DOCSIS 3.0, (where DOCSIS 3.0 is defined by software (see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, page 3, section 1.2.4, "DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications" (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0) which is only possible if DOCSIS is defined by software, and, additionally, page 44, section 5.2.3, removing software requirements present in DOCSIS 2.0 (IGMP snooping) from DOCSIS 3.0, page 46, "download a configuration file containing its service provisioning information", and page 457, "software has been upgraded to meet a new version of the specification"); ¶[0030], DOCSIS defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect));
determining an update for the software module of the second computing device (¶[0063], "For example, in one implementation a single threshold, below which the modem signals to the head end that it wishes to change transmission modes, such as switching from DOCSIS 3 (which bonds 4 channels) to DOCSIS 2 (which only occupies a single channel)"); and
wherein the update causes the software module to process a second portion of the signal (¶[0057], data is processed after update (second digital stream is data generated after bandwidth adjustment request); ¶[0063], after adjustment, signals are processed according to the second version; Fig. 4, the signal is split into two portions (after LNA1) and each portion is converted to a digital stream at ADC1 and ADC2, each digital stream being passed to the DBB1 for processing, where each may further include portions, a first portion prior to updating to the second version, and a second portion after updating to the second version (see ¶[0057]); furthermore, while ¶[0050]-[0051] discuss possibly changing filter frequencies, that is an optional step (e.g. "may", "alternatively", etc., filter changes unrelated to change in bonded channel (DOCSIS) processing) but also, adjusting BW may still encompass a prior frequency).
Ling does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device; and sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
Lazar discloses sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a network device connected to a cable modem termination system that provides data signals to the network device (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the modem may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - see also col. 3, lines 22-23; col. 8, lines 19-24, network device may be a gateway; col. 8, lines 8-15, an update may comprise new firmware (computer executable instructions); col. 5, lines 45-48, discloses that the update is to reconfigure operation of a DOCSIS firmware ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ling in view of Lazar for sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for the automation of software updates in devices (such as gateways) that do not typically include memories large enough to maintain multiple versions of software locally (Lazar, col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 9).
The combined system of Ling and Lazar does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
Carter discloses determining an update based on a type of a computing device (¶[0003], "cable modems used in a broadband cable modem termination system ("CMTS") are capable of transmitting and receiving Internet data using the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification ("DOCSIS") protocol"; ¶[0004], "Typically, each communication device is controlled with software"; ¶[0005], "The particular software file and version number is often referred to as the software `load`, or simply `load`"; ¶[0007], "equipment makers are constantly improving and upgrading their products. Such change to a product often includes the software load installed into a given device"; ¶[0008], "To provide updates to devices, such as, for example, cable modems, a service provider typically maintains a configuration file corresponding to a manufacturers device [...] an identifier is sent upstream to a central location that is operated by the service provider. Typically, the identifier is the media access control ("MAC") identification number"; ¶[0009], "the modem transmits the MAC address to a first server, typically a DHCP server, of the service provider; the MAC address is used to determine the appropriate configuration file that should be loaded into the modem. The vendor identifier contained in received MAC address is compared to values in a field of a database loaded on the DHCP server. When a match is found, associated information, including the configuration filename corresponding to the received MAC address is sent to the device having that MAC address" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Ling and Lazar in view of Carter so that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent a computing device from downloading a software version that is incompatible with the computing device.
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0057], and [0063], DOCSIS is updated from a first version, which may be DOCSIS 3.0, to a second version; ¶[0030], DOCSIS 3.0 defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect) (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect))).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2, inherently including software, see DOCSIS 2.0 specification, page 78)).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2)).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, further comprising sending the update for the software module via the signal (Lazar, col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a gateway device connected to a cable gateway termination system that provides data signals to the gateway (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the gateway may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - applied to Ling, when the system of Ling is on a power saving mode (i.e. using a single channel), data and an update would be received from the same channel).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (Ling, ¶[0071]-[0072], to implement power saving techniques, the number of channels received by a front end of the gateway may be reduced (going from wideband to narrowband, see ¶[0069]) - one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to achieve high performance, the opposite would be done: the number of channels would be increased and if RF2 was receiving only frf11, after the update it would receive frf11 and frf12, which are different signals - ¶[0056] enables the method of going from narrowband to wideband).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (Ling, ¶[0032], modifying the number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], the modification to the bonded channels is done by updating the DOCSIS version).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates packets (right hand of Fig. 4) from a bit stream (analog data signal received and processed at RF1 and passed as a digital signal to DBB1, which is configured to further process the data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074])) and
a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates a bit stream (left hand of Fig. 4) from a plurality of packets (left hand of Fig. 4) (packets received and processed at DBB1, which is configured to further process data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074], and passed as an analog signal to TX1)).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-20, Ling discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions (Fig. 1, a user device (CPE 130); ¶[0006], user device may be a gateway (a gateway is a computing device, and computing devices are known in the art to include at least one processor, and at least one memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor); see also ¶[0040], processors and instructions for the processors stored in memory) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
The remaining limitations of claims 11-12 and 15-20 are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 5-10. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 15-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10, above.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 25-30, Ling discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Fig. 1, a user device (CPE 130); ¶[0006], user device may be a gateway (a gateway is a computing device, and computing devices are known in the art to include at least one processor, and at least one memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor); see also ¶[0040], processors and instructions for the processors stored in memory):
The remaining limitations of claims 21-22 and 25-30 are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 5-10. Therefore, claims 21-22 and 25-30 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10, above.
Regarding claim 31, Ling discloses a system comprising:
a first computing device configured to: send a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (¶[0030]-[0031], "several end users" using a CPE (e.g. gateway, see ¶[0036]) to receive signals from a content provider (see Fig. 1, 110 and ¶[0035]); Fig. 4, ¶[0046], a CPE may include a radio front end (RF1, or RF2, see Fig. 5) including a splitter (e.g. after amplifier LNA1) and "converts BW1 to baseband" (i.e. a range of frequencies close to or around a single frequency, at filters F1 or F2) and then converts the baseband signal into a digital signal (at ADC1 or ADC2). Since F1 and F2 are different, different portions of the signal are converted at ADC1 or ADC2, ADC1 or ADC2 being the signal converters; additionally, ¶[0036], the CPE may be one of multiple devices, or alternatively, Fig. 5, ¶[0047], "multiple RF front ends" such as RF1, RF2),
determine an update for a software module of the second computing device (¶[0063], "For example, in one implementation a single threshold, below which the modem signals to the head end that it wishes to change transmission modes, such as switching from DOCSIS 3 (which bonds 4 channels) to DOCSIS 2 (which only occupies a single channel)"), and
the second computing device configured to: receive the signal (¶[0030]-[0031], a CPE (e.g. gateway, see ¶[0036]) configured to receive signals),
process, based on the software module of the second computing device, a first portion of the signal (¶[0046], "analog to digital data converter ADC1/2 […] converts the signal via ADC1 and ADC2"; Fig. 4, the output of ADC 1 or 2 is provided to a Digital Baseband Processor DBB1; Fig. 4, ¶[0039], DBB1 includes a MAC processor (MAC1) operating, as shown, DOCSIS 3.0, (where DOCSIS 3.0 is defined by software (see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, page 3, section 1.2.4, "DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications" (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0) which is only possible if DOCSIS is defined by software, and, additionally, page 44, section 5.2.3, removing software requirements present in DOCSIS 2.0 (IGMP snooping) from DOCSIS 3.0, page 46, "download a configuration file containing its service provisioning information", and page 457, "software has been upgraded to meet a new version of the specification"); ¶[0030], DOCSIS defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect)), and
process, based on the update to the software module, a second portion of the signal (¶[0057], data is processed after update (second digital stream is data generated after bandwidth adjustment request); ¶[0063], after adjustment, signals are processed according to the second version; Fig. 4, the signal is split into two portions (after LNA1) and each portion is converted to a digital stream at ADC1 and ADC2, each digital stream being passed to the DBB1 for processing, where each may further include portions, a first portion prior to updating to the second version, and a second portion after updating to the second version (see ¶[0057]); furthermore, while ¶[0050]-[0051] discuss possibly changing filter frequencies, that is an optional step (e.g. "may", "alternatively", etc., filter changes unrelated to change in bonded channel (DOCSIS) processing) but also, adjusting BW may still encompass a prior frequency).
Ling does not disclose that the determine an update is determine, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update, and send the update for the software module to the second computing device.
Lazar discloses sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a network device connected to a cable modem termination system that provides data signals to the network device (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the modem may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - see also col. 3, lines 22-23; col. 8, lines 19-24, network device may be a gateway; col. 8, lines 8-15, an update may comprise new firmware (computer executable instructions); col. 5, lines 45-48, discloses that the update is to reconfigure operation of a DOCSIS firmware ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ling in view of Lazar for sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for the automation of software updates in devices (such as gateways) that do not typically include memories large enough to maintain multiple versions of software locally (Lazar, col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 9).
The combined system of Ling and Lazar does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
Carter discloses determining an update based on a type of a computing device (¶[0003], "cable modems used in a broadband cable modem termination system ("CMTS") are capable of transmitting and receiving Internet data using the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification ("DOCSIS") protocol"; ¶[0004], "Typically, each communication device is controlled with software"; ¶[0005], "The particular software file and version number is often referred to as the software `load`, or simply `load`"; ¶[0007], "equipment makers are constantly improving and upgrading their products. Such change to a product often includes the software load installed into a given device"; ¶[0008], "To provide updates to devices, such as, for example, cable modems, a service provider typically maintains a configuration file corresponding to a manufacturers device [...] an identifier is sent upstream to a central location that is operated by the service provider. Typically, the identifier is the media access control ("MAC") identification number"; ¶[0009], "the modem transmits the MAC address to a first server, typically a DHCP server, of the service provider; the MAC address is used to determine the appropriate configuration file that should be loaded into the modem. The vendor identifier contained in received MAC address is compared to values in a field of a database loaded on the DHCP server. When a match is found, associated information, including the configuration filename corresponding to the received MAC address is sent to the device having that MAC address" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Ling and Lazar in view of Carter so that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent a computing device from downloading a software version that is incompatible with the computing device.
Regarding claim 34, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0057], and [0063], DOCSIS is updated from a first version, which may be DOCSIS 3.0, to a second version; ¶[0030], DOCSIS 3.0 defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect) (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect))).
Regarding claim 35, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2, inherently including software, see DOCSIS 2.0 specification, page 78)).
Regarding claim 36, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2)).
Regarding claim 37, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the first computing device is further configured to send the update for the software module via the signal (Lazar, col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a gateway device connected to a cable gateway termination system that provides data signals to the gateway (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the gateway may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - applied to Ling, when the system of Ling is on a power saving mode (i.e. using a single channel), data and an update would be received from the same channel).
Regarding claim 38, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (Ling, ¶[0071]-[0072], to implement power saving techniques, the number of channels received by a front end of the gateway may be reduced (going from wideband to narrowband, see ¶[0069]) - one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to achieve high performance, the opposite would be done: the number of channels would be increased and if RF2 was receiving only frf11, after the update it would receive frf11 and frf12, which are different signals - ¶[0056] enables the method of going from narrowband to wideband).
Regarding claim 39, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (Ling, ¶[0032], modifying the number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], the modification to the bonded channels is done by updating the DOCSIS version).
Regarding claim 40, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates packets (right hand of Fig. 4) from a bit stream (analog data signal received and processed at RF1 and passed as a digital signal to DBB1, which is configured to further process the data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074])) and
a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates a bit stream (left hand of Fig. 4) from a plurality of packets (left hand of Fig. 4) (packets received and processed at DBB1, which is configured to further process data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074], and passed as an analog signal to TX1)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-14, 23-24, and 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights