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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 1 and 19, “moveable within a range of distance” should be changed to “moveable within a range of distances” for grammatical purposes.
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 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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen et al. (US 2020/0153515 A1) in view of Sipes et al. (US 10,171,180 B2), further in view of Pitwon (US 2017/0010421 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Goergen discloses device comprising a case (110 in Fig. 11A) configured to secure a laser source (paragraph 0075 discloses the optical module being an optical transceiver comprising a VCSEL laser); and an electro-optical (EO) connector configured to connect with an EO port (111), the EO connector comprising: an optical connector (112) configured to connect with an optical port of the EO port and is configured to provide light from the laser source to the optical port; and an electrical connector (113) configured to connect with an electrical port of the EO port, wherein the laser source is configured to at least one of receive power through the electrical connector or facilitate establishing a communication channel through the electrical connector (paragraph 0117), wherein the optical connector and the electrical connector are on a first side of the case (see Fig. 11A).
Still regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Goergen teaches the claimed invention except for the optical connector and the electrical connector aligned on a first plane. Sipes discloses a device (Figs. 15, 16) comprising an optical connector (1512, end of 1612 – description of Fig. 16 states that the mechanical splice 1604 can be replaced with a connector pair) configured to connect with an optical port (1514, 1608), and an electrical connector (1506, end of 1614) configured to connect with an electrical port (1508, 1610), wherein the optical connector and electrical connector are aligned on a first plane. Since both inventions relate to hybrid connectors, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to align the optical connector and electrical connector as disclosed by Sipes in the device of Goergen for the purpose of facilitating connection while reducing the size of the device.
Still regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, the proposed combination of Goergen and Sipes teaches the claimed invention except for one of the optical connector and the electrical connector moveable within a range of distances to compensate for misalignment. Pitwon discloses an electrical connector configured to at least partially engage with an electrical port prior to an optical connector contacting an optical port, wherein the electrical connector provides a coarse alignment for the optical connector in paragraph 0037. Pitwon further discloses the optical connector is moveable within a range of distances to connect with the optical port in response to the optical connector being aligned to the optical port within the range of distances to facilitate optical and electrical connections and compensate for misalignment in paragraphs 0038-0040 and 0061 and Figs. 3A-3D. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have one of the optical connector and the electrical connector moveable within a range of distances to compensate for misalignment as disclosed by Pitwon in the device of the proposed combination of Goergen and Sipes for the purpose of facilitating connection while minimizing damage to the optical components.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination of Goergen, Sipes and Pitwon teaches the claimed invention except for the case formed from one or more materials selected to block the light emitted by the laser source. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the case formed from one or more materials selected to block the light emitted by the laser source in order to prevent undesired leakage of laser light, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Goergen discloses the case comprises a heat sink (177 in Fig. 17; paragraph 0126) configured to dissipate heat from at least the laser source.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Goergen discloses the laser source is configured to provide the light to the optical port in response to the EO connector being connected to the EO port and wherein the laser source is configured to receive power through the electrical connector in response to the EO connector being connected to the EO port (Fig. 7; paragraphs 0101, 0103).
Regarding claim 8, Goergen discloses the laser source is configured to provide the light to the optical port in response to a signal being present on a communication channel (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 9, Goergen discloses the optical connector provides two or more optical connections (112 in Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 10, Goergen discloses the electrical connector includes multiple electrical contacts (113 in Fig. 11A) for multiple electrical connections.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the proposed combination of Goergen, Sipes and Pitwon teaches the claimed invention except for an optical port on a second side of the case. However, Goergen further discloses the data provided to end users in paragraphs 0063 and 0073. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to dispose optical fibers at an additional optical port on a second side of the case in order to direct the optical signals to said end users while preserving space on the first side of the case, allowing for a higher density of signal transmission.
Regarding claim 12, Goergen discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a network device (14) secured to a case (transceiver 16 is housed within case as shown in Fig. 11A), the network device comprising at least one of a switch or a hub (14 includes “switch”; paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 13, Goergen discloses the network device further comprises: one or more optical transceivers (16) located in the case, each of the one or more optical transceivers connected to the optical port of at least one of the one or more EO ports.
Regarding claim 14, Goergen discloses the one or more optical transceivers are co-packaged with the network device in Figs. 1 and 11A.
Regarding claim 15, Goergen discloses the network device is configured to at least one of: provide the power through the electrical connector of a particular EO port of the one or more EO ports in response to the particular EO port being connected to the EO connector; or establish the communication channel through the electrical connector of a particular EO port of the one or more EO ports in response to the particular EO port being connected to the EO connector (Fig. 7; paragraphs 0101, 0103).
Regarding claim 16, Goergen discloses the optical connector of at least one of the one or more EO ports provides multiple optical connections (112 in Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 17, Goergen discloses at least one of the one or more electrical connectors includes multiple electrical contacts (113 in Fig. 11A) for multiple electrical connections.
Regarding claim 18, Goergen discloses the network device is further configured to receive optical signals from one or more devices on a network through the optical port (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0066, 0087).
Regarding claim 19, Goergen discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a network device (14) secured to a first case (transceiver 16 is housed within case as shown in Fig. 11A), the network device comprising at least one of a switch or a hub (14 includes “switch”; paragraph 0073) coupled to a laser source secured to a second case (paragraph 0087 describes different network topologies to communicate data over the network including nodes coupled to other nodes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights