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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --CONNECTOR MODULES WITH STAGGERED CONNECTORS MOUNTED IN AN ENCLOSURE--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 7, the phrase “axis-and” should read --axis and--. Claims 2-10 and 21 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. In claim 5 line 2, the phrase “a restraint plate, of the module, between a first row” should read -- a restraint plate of the module between a first row--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (2016/0085042) in view of Nakano (7,194,178).
With regard to claim 1, Lewis teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraphs 5 and 19: “An apparatus 300 comprising: a module base 350 of a module (right-most 100 in figure 3A); a first module connector (one of the connectors 120 in the top row of right-most 100 in figure 3A) mounted on the module base 350 in a first row (bottom row 140 in figure 1) of module connectors (shown below) and configured to mate with a first cable connector (cable connector shown mated to the first module connector in figure 3A); a second module connector (one of the connectors 120 in the second row of the right-most 100 in figure 3A), mounted on the module base 350 in a second row of module connectors (connectors in the second row as shown below) spaced from the first row along an insertion axis (up-down axis in figure 3C)-and configured to mate with a second cable connector (cable connector shown mated to the module connector in figure 3A), wherein a side of the second module connector (top of the module connector shown below) corresponding to the… mechanism (notch in the top of the second module connectors in figure 1 shown below) of the cable connector is oriented toward an opposite side of the first module connector; wherein the second module connector is staggered from the first module connector along the insertion axis by a length sufficient to at least partially expose the release mechanism of the second cable connector for manual actuation while the first and second cable connectors remain mated to the first and second module connectors (paragraph 5 teaches the rows being staggered/stepped to allow access to all rows of connectors)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis does not specifically teach the mechanism being a release mechanism between the module connectors and the cable connectors. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the notch shown in the top of the module connectors corresponds to a release mechanism on the cable connector since sockets having this shape are known to have this function (see, for example, Nakano figure 3 and described in column 6 lines 61-63, lock portion 15 to release the connector when pressed) and allow the locking and releasing of the connector to the mating connector.
With regard to claim 2, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: the second module connector staggered from the first module connector by a length exposing the release mechanism of the fiber connector”.
With regard to claim 3, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: the first module connector within a first plurality of module connectors (connectors 120 in the top row of right-most 100 in figure 3A) forming a first row of module connectors; and the second module connector within a second plurality of module connectors (connectors 120 in the second row of the right-most 100 in figure 3A) forming a second row of module connectors”.
With regard to claim 4, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “wherein the cable connector 140 connects one of a fiber optic cable and an electrical cable to the second module connector”.
With regard to claim 5, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: a restraint plate (plate of 110 between the upper and middle rows of 120 in figure 1), of the module 100, between a first row comprising the first module connector and a second row comprising the second module connector”.
With regard to claim 6, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: a rear connector 120 of the module 100”.
With regard to claim 7, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: a panel 300 into which the module 100 is connected”.
With regard to claim 10, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Lewis also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraph 19: “further comprising: a fastening point 200 of the module base 350 aligning with a fastening point 130 of a first restraint plate (plate between top two rows of the first module in figure 3A) and with a fastening point 130 of a second restraint plate (plate between the bottom two rows of the first module in figure 3A) (the restraint plates are fastened to the module base using the same fastening point 200)”.
With regard to claim 20, Lewis teaches, as shown in figures 1-3C and taught in paragraphs 5 and 19: “A system comprising: a panel 350 of a rack 300; a module (right-most 100 in figure 3A); a first module connector (shown below) within the module that is disposed in a first row (bottom row 140 in figure 1) of module connectors (bottom row connectors, as shown below) and configured to mate with a first cable connector (cable connector shown mated to the first module connector in figure 3A); a second module connector (one of the connectors 120 in the second row of the right-most 100 in figure 3A) within the module that is disposed in a second row of module connectors (connectors in the second row as shown below) and configured to mate with a second cable connector (cable connector shown mated to the module connector in figure 3A), wherein the second module connector is oriented with a side of the second connector corresponding to a… mechanism of a cable connector toward an opposite side of the first module connector; wherein the second module connector is staggered from the first module connector along the insertion axis by a length sufficient to at least partially expose the… mechanism of the of the second cable connector for manual actuation while the first and second cable connectors remain mated to the first and second module connectors (paragraph 5 teaches the rows being staggered/stepped to allow access to all rows of connectors)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis does not specifically teach the mechanism being a release mechanism between the module connectors and the cable connectors. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the notch shown in the top of the module connectors corresponds to a release mechanism on the cable connector since sockets having this shape are known to have this function (see, for example, Nakano figure 3 and described in column 6 lines 61-63, lock portion 15 to release the connector when pressed) and allow the locking and releasing of the connector to the mating connector.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (2016/0085042) in view of Nakano (7,194,178) and Takeuchi et al. (2021/0409842).
With regard to claim 8, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Lewis nor Nakano teach: “wherein the first row is offset by a first pitch angle about an axis transverse to the insertion axis relative to a plane orthogonal to the insertion axis”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Takeuchi teaches, as shown in figure 34B: “wherein the first row 3420b is offset by a first pitch angle about an axis 3430b transverse to the insertion axis (axis running perpendicularly through the pivots 3430b parallel to the pivots 3430a and 3430b) relative to a plane orthogonal to the insertion axis”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Takeuchi with the invention of Lewis as modified by Nakano in order to allow improved access to the cable connection ports (Takeuchi, paragraph 8).
With regard to claim 9, Lewis as modified by Takeuchi and Nagano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 8”, as shown above.
Takeuchi also teaches, as shown in figure 34B: “wherein the second row 3420a is offset by a second pitch angle about the axis transverse to the insertion axis, and wherein the second pitch angle is less than the first pitch angle”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Takeuchi with the invention of Lewis as modified by Nakano and Takeuchi in order to allow improved access to the cable connection ports (Takeuchi, paragraph 8).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (2016/0085042) in view of Nakano (7,194,178) and Cooke et al. (2010/0054684).
With regard to claim 21, Lewis as modified by Nakano teaches: “The apparatus of claim 5 and the staggered configuration”, as shown above.
Neither Lewis nor Nakano teach: “wherein the restraint plate is positioned between the first row and the second row, the restraint plate comprising: retention features engaging boss features of module connectors of the first row and of the second row; and a fastener extending through aligned fastening points of the module base and the restraint plate to secure the first row and the second row in the staggered configuration”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Cooke teaches, as shown in figures 4-5: “wherein the restraint plate 20 and 50 is positioned between the first row (bottom row in figure 5) and the second row (middle row in figure 5), the restraint plate comprising: retention features 54 engaging boss features 52A and 52B of module connectors 22 of the first row and of the second row; and a fastener 78 extending through aligned fastening points (where 78 latches in 54, as described in paragraph 78) of the module base and the restraint plate to secure the first row and the second row in the… configuration”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Cooke with the invention of Lewis as modified by Nakano in order to hold the modules in place (Cooke, paragraph 78).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1 and 20, the Applicant argues that the cited reference Lewis does not teach the staggered configuration allowing access to expose the release mechanism. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Lewis teaches the rows of connectors being accessible in that configuration and shows connectors with a lock and release mechanism allowing access to said mechanism with the module connectors mated to the cable connectors.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831