DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agazzi (US 2017/0317759) in view of Surek (US 2011/0076031).
2. As per claim 1, Agazzi teaches a Physical Layer (PHY) device, comprising: an ingress transceiver and an egress transceiver (Agazzi, Fig. 9 items 901 950. Furthermore, it’s well-known in the art to implement ingress and egress transceiver for the benefit of processing flexibility and efficiency see Surek US 2021/0297230 for example Fig. 1), each comprising respective analog signal processing (ASP) circuitry and respective digital signal processing (DSP) circuitry (Agazzi, ¶0023 0029 0038 0049); and a controller, configured to select an operational mode, for one or both of the ingress transceiver and the egress transceiver (Agazzi, ¶0134), between (i) a digital mode in which both the ASP circuitry and the DSP circuitry are active, and (ii) an analog mode in which the ASP circuitry is active and the DSP circuitry is bypassed (Agazzi, ¶0018). Therefore, taking the combined teaching of Agazzi and Surek as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the instant limitation for the benefit of processing flexibility and efficiency.
3. Claims 8 & 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 1 for obviousness reason discussed above.
4. As per claim 2, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to select the operational mode independently for the ingress transceiver and for the egress transceiver (Agazzi, ¶0018).
5. Claims 9, 10 & 17 are similarly analyzed as claim 2 for obviousness reason discussed above.
6. As per claim 3, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein the ASP circuitry comprises analog repeater circuitry configured to amplify an analog signal (Agazzi, ¶0141).
7. Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 3 for obviousness reason discussed above.
8. As per claim 4, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein the DSP circuitry comprises digital retiming circuitry configured to digitally adjust a sampling timing of a digital signal (Agazzi, ¶0034).
9. Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 4 for obviousness reason discussed above.
10. As per claim 5, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein the DSP circuitry has a first latency, and wherein the ASP circuitry has a second latency smaller than the first latency (It’s well-known in the art ASP has smaller latency than DSP due to additional digital signal processing in DSP circuits.
11. Claims 13 & 18 are similarly analyzed as claim 5 for obviousness reason discussed above.
12. As per claim 6, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein, when either or both of the ingress transceiver and the egress transceiver operate in the analog mode, the DSP circuitry is bypassed but active and is configured when bypassed to collect telemetry information (Agazzi, ¶0018 0149).
13. Claims 14 & 19 are similarly analyzed as claim 6 for obviousness reason discussed above.
14. As per claim 7, Agazzi in view of Dror teaches the PHY device according to claim 1, wherein: the ingress transceiver and the egress transceiver are configured to, respectively, receive and transmit signals over a communication link (Agazzi, Fig. 9 item 928); and the controller is configured to select the operational mode by comparing channel conditions of the communication link to a defined level (Agazzi, ¶0149).
15. Claims 15 & 20 are similarly analyzed as claim 7 for obviousness reason discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEWDU A KASSA whose telephone number is (571)270-5253. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, David Payne can be reached at 5712723024. 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.
ZEWDU A. KASSA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/ZEWDU A KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
