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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0089554) in view of Ofek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0196813).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-17, Li teaches an RF line extender amplifier in a fiber optic and coaxial cables [i.e., hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC)] network (Note; fiber optic and coaxial cables make up an HFC (Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial) network by combining both technologies) (paragraph 0004), the RF line extender amplifier comprising:
RF amplifier circuitry (abstract; fig.1, 4, 5, 10; paragraphs 0003, 0082);
a service port communicatively coupled with the RF amplifier circuitry (fig.1, 10; paragraphs 0011-0013, 0117); and
a wireless adapter communicatively coupled with the RF amplifier circuitry via the service port, the wireless adapter configured to communicatively couple with a user device to allow for wireless maintenance of the RF line extender amplifier (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 10; paragraphs 0011-0013, 0021, 0117).
However, Li does not specifically teach a wireless adapter. Ofek teaches a wireless adapter (paragraph 0019). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of a wireless adapter in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to receive the analog signal through and the plurality of TRCs (Transmit/Receive (Directional) Couplings).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Li does not specifically teach wherein the service port is a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port. Ofek teaches wherein the service port is a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port (paragraph 0019). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of wherein the service port is a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make a communication connection using USB.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches a service port interface (abstract; paragraphs 0005-0006, 0008). However, Li does not specifically teach wherein the wireless adapter further comprises: one or more wireless interfaces. Ofek teaches wherein the wireless adapter further comprises: one or more wireless interfaces (paragraph 0286). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of wherein the wireless adapter further comprises: one or more wireless interfaces in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to receive the analog signal through and the plurality of TRCs (Transmit/Receive (Directional) Couplings).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is an 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) interface. Ofek teaches wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is an 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) interface (paragraphs 0098-0100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is an 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) interface in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make compatible with existing radio units that adhere to IEEE 802.11b.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Li does not specifically teach wherein the Wi-Fi interface operates over a 2.4 GHz band and 5 GHz band. Ofek teaches wherein the Wi-Fi interface operates over a 2.4 GHz band and 5 GHz band (paragraphs 0098-0100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of wherein the Wi-Fi interface operates over a 2.4 GHz band and 5 GHz band in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make use the system to operate at both 2.4 and 5 GHz carrier frequencies.
Regarding claim 12, Li does not specifically teach wherein the wireless adapter further comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Ofek teaches wherein the wireless adapter further comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver (paragraphs 0090, 0263). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the feature of wherein the wireless adapter further comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a GPS (global positioning system) receiver as a wireless device such that the user can get benefit out of using the GPS receiver.
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0089554) in view of Ofek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0196813) further in view of XU et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN107768852A).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the USB port is a USB Type-A port. XU teaches wherein the USB port is a USB Type-A port (last paragraph in page 5 to first paragraph in page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the USB port is a USB Type-A port in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by XU. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make a communication connection using USB Type-A port conveniently.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the USB port is a USB Type-A port. XU teaches wherein the USB port is a USB Type-C port (last paragraph in page 5 to first paragraph in page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the USB port is a USB Type-C port in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by XU. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make a communication connection using USB Type-C port conveniently.
Claims 13-16 and 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0089554) in view of Ofek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0196813) further in view of Hagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0119595).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach a user device communicatively coupled with the wireless adapter including a maintenance console for the RF amplifier circuitry, the maintenance console configured to: receive status information from the RF amplifier circuitry and send control information to the RF amplifier circuitry. Hagen teaches a user device including a maintenance windows [i.e., maintenance console] for the RF amplifier circuitry, the maintenance console configured to: receive status information from the RF amplifier circuitry and send control information to the RF amplifier circuitry (fig.2-5; paragraphs 0007, 0012, 0018, 0022-0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of a user device including a maintenance console for the RF amplifier circuitry, the maintenance console configured to: receive status information from the RF amplifier circuitry and send control information to the RF amplifier circuitry in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by Hagen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to monitor the status of a RF device conveniently.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the maintenance console includes a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hagen teaches the maintenance windows [i.e., maintenance console] (fig.2-5; paragraphs 0007, 0012, 0018, 0022-0024) and Examiner takes an official notice that maintenance console including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the maintenance console includes a Graphical User Interface (GUI) in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention in order to monitor the status of a RF device to a technician conveniently.
Claims 15, 16, 19 and 22 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 2, 5, 9 and 12 respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Li does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is a Bluetooth interface. Ofek teaches wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is an 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) interface [i.e., Bluetooth interface] (paragraphs 0098-0100) (Note; The IEEE 802.11 wireless local area networks also known as Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth wireless personal area networks have independently become the leading wireless network technologies.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen to incorporate the feature of wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is a Bluetooth interface in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to monitor the status of a RF device within a short range using a Bluetooth interface conveniently.
Regarding claim 21, Li does not specifically teach wherein the Bluetooth interface is selected from the group consisting of standard Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and Bluetooth Mesh. Ofek teaches wherein at least one of the one or more wireless interfaces is an 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) interface [i.e., Bluetooth interface] is selected from the group consisting of standard Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and Bluetooth Mesh (paragraphs 0098-0100) (Note; The IEEE 802.11 wireless local area networks also known as Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth wireless personal area networks have independently become the leading wireless network technologies.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen to incorporate the feature of wherein the Bluetooth interface is selected from the group consisting of standard Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and Bluetooth Mesh in Li’s invention as taught by Ofek. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to monitor the status of a RF device using a standard Bluetooth interface conveniently.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 24, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the status information includes at least one of enclosure status, alarm status, amplifier status, and diplex filter status. Hagen teaches wherein the status information includes at least one of enclosure status, alarm status, amplifier status, and diplex filter status (fig.2-5; paragraphs 0007, 0012, 0018, 0022-0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the status information includes at least one of enclosure status, alarm status, amplifier status, and diplex filter status in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by Hagen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to monitor the status of a RF device conveniently.
Regarding claim 25, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the spectrum information further comprises: downstream spectrum information, the downstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; automatic gain control configuration; and universal plugin status. Hagen teaches wherein the spectrum information further comprises: downstream spectrum information, the downstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; automatic gain control configuration; and universal plugin status (paragraph 0002) (Note; RF power amplifiers are typically made up of one or more cascaded amplifier stages, each of which increases the level of the signal applied to the input of that stage by an amount known as the gain stage. Additionally each cascaded amplifier stage can be paralleled with another amplifier to increase the RF power output of the cascaded stage if needed. Ideally, the input to output transfer of each stage is linear, i.e., a perfect replica of the input signal increased in amplitude appears at the amplifier output.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the spectrum information further comprises: downstream spectrum information, the downstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; automatic gain control configuration; and universal plugin status in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by Hagen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to increase level of signal conveniently.
Regarding claim 26, Li in view of Ofek does not specifically teach wherein the spectrum information further comprises: upstream spectrum information, the upstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; and ingress switch status. Hagen teaches wherein the spectrum information further comprises: upstream spectrum information, the upstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; and ingress switch status (paragraph 0002) (Note; RF power amplifiers are typically made up of one or more cascaded amplifier stages, each of which increases the level of the signal applied to the input of that stage by an amount known as the gain stage. Additionally each cascaded amplifier stage can be paralleled with another amplifier to increase the RF power output of the cascaded stage if needed. Ideally, the input to output transfer of each stage is linear, i.e., a perfect replica of the input signal increased in amplitude appears at the amplifier output.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek to incorporate the feature of wherein the spectrum information further comprises: upstream spectrum information, the upstream spectrum information including at least one of gain; slope; and ingress switch status in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention as taught by Hagen. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to increase level of signal conveniently.
Regarding claim 27, Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen does not specifically teach wherein the spectrum information further comprises: a first controls to start a downstream alignment procedure; and a second controls to start an upstream alignment procedure. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the spectrum information further comprises: a first controls to start a downstream alignment procedure; and a second controls to start an upstream alignment procedure is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen to incorporate the feature of wherein the spectrum information further comprises: a first controls to start a downstream alignment procedure; and a second controls to start an upstream alignment procedure in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention further in view of Hagen’s invention in order to execute both of the first and second control for a start conveniently.
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 20.
Regarding claim 29, Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen does not specifically teach wherein the GUI is an app executed on the user device. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the GUI is an app executed on the user device is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen to incorporate the feature of wherein the GUI is an app executed on the user device in Li’s invention in view of Ofek’s invention further in view of Hagen’s invention in order to let the technician to use a GUI in his device conveniently.
Regarding claim 30, Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen does not specifically teach wherein the GUI is a web GUI accessed via the Wi-Fi interface. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the GUI is a web GUI accessed via the Wi-Fi interface is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Ofek further in view of Hagen to incorporate the feature of wherein the GUI is a web GUI accessed via the Wi-Fi interface in view of Ofek’s invention further in view of Hagen’s invention in order to let the technician to use a GUI in his device via the Wi-Fi interface conveniently.
Claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0089554) in view of Ofek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0196813) further in view of Hagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0119595) further in view of XU et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN107768852A).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 4 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md S. Elahee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights