Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 03/18/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 20 have been amended, claims 6 and 14 have been canceled, and new claims 21-22 has/have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (Pub. No.: 2005/0102040 A1) in view of Tarighat Mehrabani (Pub. No.: 2021/0175925 A1; hereinafter Tarighat)
1) In regard to claim 1, Kruse discloses the claimed apparatus (fig. 1), comprising:
a repeater unit (fig. 1: 40); and
a microcontroller unit (fig. 1: 30) in communication with the repeater unit (fig. 1 shows controller 30 in communication with repeater 40), the MCU being configured to control building equipment using signals communicated using a building equipment interface (¶0035).
Kruse does not explicitly disclose the MCU is in communication with a network of controllers via a physical medium, and the repeater unit is configured to amplify signals on the physical medium, and the repeater unit does not modify data passing through the repeater unit.
However, Tarighat discloses it has been known for a communication system to have a controller to be in communication with a network of controllers via a physical medium, and the repeater unit is configured to amplify signals on the physical medium, and the repeater unit does not modify data passing through the repeater unit (¶0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus to communicate on a physical medium and amplify the signal, as taught by Hauck.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Kruse as described above in order to connect devices within a building via the electrical power system.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Kruse and Tarighat do not explicitly disclose the MCU and the repeater unit are integrated together.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an apparatus to integrate both a repeater and controller unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Kruse to integrate the controller and repeater.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Kruse as described above in order to provide a more compact apparatus.
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Kruse and Tarighat do not explicitly disclose the MCU and the repeater unit are disposed on a single module.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an apparatus to dispose both a repeater and controller unit on a single module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Kruse controller and repeater to be disposed on a single module.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Kruse as described above in order to provide a more compact apparatus.
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the MCU is disposed in a first housing and the repeater unit is disposed in a second housing (Kruse fig. 1).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the MCU and the repeater unit are mounted together and include a connection interface (Kruse fig. 1).
6) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the MCU and the repeater unit receive power from a same power source (fig. 1: 10).
7) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the MCU comprises a universal serial bus interface (fig. 1: 30).
8) In regard to claim x, claim 9 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 9), claim 10 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 9), claim 11 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 9), claim 12 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 9), claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 9), claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim x, claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 16), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the device of claim 18, wherein the MCU connected to the repeater module via the connection interface (fig. 1).
Kruse and Tarighat do not explicitly disclose when the repeater module is mounted to the MCU.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a module to be mounted to a connection interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the module of Kruse to be mounted to the connection interface.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Kruse as described above in order to allow data signals to communicate from one device to another.
18) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 16), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the device of claim 16, wherein the MCU is configured to control building equipment using first data on the physical medium and sensor data from a sensor coupled to a sensor actuator bus (Kruse ¶0035 and ¶0041).
19) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 16), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the device of claim 16, wherein the MCU and the repeater module are integrated together (Tarighat fig. 2B: 220).
20) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 16), Kruse and Tarighat further disclose the device of claim 16, wherein the MCU and the repeater module are disposed on a single module (Tarighat fig. 2B: 220).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Furthermore, the well-known in the art statements in the above Office action is taken to be admitted prior art due to applicant failure to traverse the examiner’s official notice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights