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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 2/4/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 15-22, and 24-26 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 25, and 26 are currently amended. Claims 1, 11, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 3, 10, 12-14, and 23 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 15-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the amended limitation “…wherein the first stage optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths mapping connections between the plurality of core switches and the first of network ports” on lines 6-8 and repeated on the last two lines. This limitation has no support in the specification as described. The drawings show patch panels and jumpers (cables) as separate elements. In Par.[0035] and [0053] of the Applicant’s disclosure there is an oblique reference to the first stage patch panel as “(e.g. first stage optical jumper).” There is no support to equate optical jumpers which are cables with patch panels in general and the equivalence does not work because they are two different physical elements. There is no support for the claim limitation “…wherein the first stage optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths mapping connections between the plurality of core switches and the first of network ports” because the specification does not include any description that the optical jumper defines a mapping. A patch panel may function to define the mapping between the switches on the ingress side and the network ports on the terminal side using a plurality of fixed optical paths but the optical jumper being a separate physical element in the form of a cable that attaches the patch panel to the terminal side does not define the mapping and the specification does not include any support for this limitation. Other independent claims repeat the limitation and are analyzed similarly. Dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency and are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “optical jumper” and there is no support for the claim limitation as recited because no support for such feature exists within the Applicant’s disclosure other than the reference in Par.[0035] and [0053] of the Applicant’s disclosure which shows the first stage patch panel as “(e.g. first stage optical jumper).” Claim 11 recites the limitation “an optical jumper comprising a plurality of optical fibers…” Note however, that there is no support in the Applicant’s disclosure for a multi-fiber optical jumper.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Because each of these claims recite the limitation “another optical jumper” or depend on a claim that recites it. There is no support for this claim limitation with the Applicant’s original disclosure. In Par.[0035] and [0053] of the Applicant’s disclosure there is an oblique reference to the first stage patch panel as “(e.g. first stage optical jumper).” There is no support to equate optical jumpers which are cables with patch panels in general and the equivalence does not work because they are two different physical elements. There are no multiple optical jumpers described in the Applicant’s specification. The scalable system is described in terms of first stage, second stage patch panel in the Applicant’s specification and yet, the claims recite optical jumpers with no mention of the patch panel that appears to be critical to implement their claimed invention. It is possible that the claims misrepresent what appears to be the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 2, 4-11, 13-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…wherein the first stage optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths mapping connections between the plurality of core switches and the first of network ports” on lines 6-8 and repeated on the last two lines, which is ambiguous. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the relevant arts, an optical jumper is just a cable that carries signals between two network components and to that extent enable communication between them. In Par.[0035] and [0053] of the Applicant’s disclosure there is an oblique reference to the first stage patch panel as “(e.g. first stage optical jumper).” There is no support to equate optical jumpers which are cables with patch panels in general and the equivalence does not work because they are two different physical elements. There is no support for the claim limitation “…wherein the first stage optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths mapping connections between the plurality of core switches and the first of network ports” because the specification does not include any description that the optical jumper defines a mapping. It is possible that the Applicant is misrepresenting their claimed invention because Par.[0038] of the original disclosure attributes the function of selective communication between multiple elements to the patch panel with processing capability and not the cable. A patch panel may function to define the mapping between the switches on the ingress side and the network ports on the terminal side using a plurality of fixed optical paths but not the optical jumper.
In the same vein, claim 11 recites an optical jumper comprising a plurality of optical fibers and there is no support for such feature within the Applicant’s disclosure. In the same vein, claim 11 recites the limitation “optical jumper” and it is not clear how a cable without processing power would define mapping connections between two network components other than to manually connecting them to the patch panel and furthermore, there is no support for such a feature within the Applicant’s disclosure other than the reference in Par.[0035] and [0053] of the Applicant’s disclosure which shows the first stage patch panel as “(e.g. first stage optical jumper).” It is unclear if the Applicant is conflating the two terms, patch panel and optical jumper. Claim 15 suffers from the same deficiency as claim 1. Corresponding dependent claims do not cure the deficiency and are therefore, rejected as being indefinite.
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, 9, 10, 11-14, 15, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over by Rauch (US 6.243,510 B1, hereinafter Rauch) and for inherency, Gandham et al. (US 9,479,219 B1, hereinafter Gandham), in view of Jong et al. (US 2004/0126069 A1, hereinafter Jong).
Regarding claim 1, Rauch teaches a scalable networking system, the system comprising:
a plurality of core switches, [Figure 11, element 210 providing a plurality of computer network components configured to communicate (~switches),];
a patch panel connected to the plurality of core switches, [Figure 11, element 220, 230 describes a patch panel connecting plurality of network components; see also Figure 1 where the switch matrix is a patch panel; Figure 4 shows a variety of devices including switches connected to the patch panel]; and
a first stage optical jumper manually detachable with respect to the patch panel, [Figure 11, element 220 and 230 refers to optic cables (optical jumper) connecting network components through the patch panel; claim term ‘manually’ is not used in the Applicant’s specification but cables are manually attached or detached to the patch panel; see Figure 11 and associated description and elsewhere for fiber optic cable connecting network element via a port on the patch panel and it is detachable];
wherein, in an operational configuration in which the scalable networking system comprises the first stage optical jumper, [Figure 11, elements 220, 230], the first stage optical jumper is configured to:
connect the first set of network ports and a first portion of the plurality of core switches such that signals may pass therebetween, [Figure 11, element 220, 240, patch panel controls selectively what ports connect what components, element 240 shows electronically controlling the patch panel to connect the port coupled to a first one of the plural network components (~first portion of the switches) to the port coupled to a second of the plurality of network components (~first set of network ports/pods) so that communication is made between the first component and the second component; associated description of Figure 11 reads additional components may then be connected through the patch panel if desired, and/or existing connections may be changed (different portions of switches or sets of network ports)];
Rauch in Figure 4 shows an assortment of devices and network components connected to the patch panel using optic cables; for a clearer presentation of the topology in the claims of switches and network ports connected using the patch panel, analogous reference Gandham is provided, [Figure 2 shows patch panel (OCS) 210 connecting switches to server groups and associated description supports the entirety of the claim as well, see also Col. 2, lines 56-67, Col. 3, lines 1-3];
Rauch (and Gandham) do not explicitly teach the optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths;
Jong in an analogous art teaches the optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths, [see 112a and 112b rejections and given the ambiguity in the unsupported claim limitation this reference may not be necessary; it is not clear whether the applicant is erroneously equating the optical jumper with the patch panel and there is no support for a multi-fiber optical jumper in the Applicant’s disclosure; however for compact prosecution, Jong teaches an optical jumper that contains plurality of optical fibers, [Par.[0005]]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a multifiber fiber optic jumper. The motivation/suggestion would have been to use flexible multifiber optical jumpers to reduce costs and complexity or routing, [Jong: Par.[0002]].
Claim 11 is an obvious variant of claim 1 and is rejected as above, [claim recites an optical jumper which is just a cable as understood in the relevant arts, as selectively providing communication between switches and network ports/pods but the specification describes patch panel with that functionality in Par.[0038] and elsewhere and Par.[0035] and [0053] appear to equate a first stage patch panel to a first stage optical jumper without rationale; there is no support for a multi-fiber optical jumper comprising a plurality of optical fibers as recited in claim 11 in the Applicant’s disclosure; see 112a rejection].
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 9, Rauch and Jong teaches the scalable networking system of claim 1, wherein the patch panel comprises a plurality of communication mediums configured to operatively couple the first set of network ports and the first portion of the plurality of core switches in the operational configuration, [Abstract and elsewhere describe optical signals, electrical signals received between network elements on their corresponding data paths. Col. 3, lines 16-30 describe multiple mediums involved in the patch panel (~System 10), also in Col. 5, lines 38-57; Figures 1, 3, and 11].
Regarding claim 10, Rauch and Jong teaches the scalable networking system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of communication mediums comprises optical fibers, electrical traces, and/or electrical wires, [see claim 9].
Claims 13-14 correspond to claims 9 and 10 respectively and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 24, Rauch and Jong teaches the scalable networking system of claim 1, wherein connection between the plurality of core switches and the patch panel is maintained during replacement of the first stage optical jumper, [Figure 11, 230, 240 show each networking element is connected to a port by a fiber optic cable and removing the cable does not remove the path between port to port established electronically, as in the patch panel port coupled to first network element (switch) is undisturbed while the cable to the port coupling a pod is changed].
Regarding claim 25, Rauch and Jong teaches the scalable networking system according to claim 1, wherein the first stage of expansion is associated with a first network topology, [See Figure 4 and adding any of the devices to the patch panel results in an expansion and understood as associated with a network topology and Figure 11 where the network components are added to the patch panel incrementally would be understood as based on a network topology].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauch and Jong in view of Gandham.
Regarding claim 2, Rauch and Jong teaches the scalable networking system according to claim 1, and does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of switches is housed within a shared datacenter rack;
Gandham teaches wherein the plurality of switches is housed within a shared datacenter rack, [see also Col. 2, lines 56-67, Col. 3, lines 1-3 and elsewhere for switches and smart patch panel within a data center; see Figure 2 and associated description in Col. 5, lines 24-36];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the network components in Rauch in a data center rack connected by a patch panel as taught by Gandham. The motivation/suggestion would have been the dynamic control of OCS/patch panel in datacenters allowing the topology of network architecture 200 to be reconfigured dynamically without having to rewire the network [Gandham: Figure 2, Col. 5, lines 24-36].
Examiner’s Note: Claims 4-8, 22, 16-21, and 26 do not have support in the Applicant’s specification as recited and further explained in this Office Action. If the limitations claimed were to find support in a well-articulated specification, note that these limitations are simply referring to programmatically controlling port to port connections within the patch panel and both references, Rauch and Gandham, describe such a patch panel, and Gandham in particular, with reference to Figure 2 and the associated description supports the claimed invention as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the amended limitation introduces new 112 issues with respect to the optical jumper defining a mapping between the switches and the network ports and there is no support in the Applicant’s disclosure for an optical jumper as defining such a mapping. As explained in the OA, an optical jumper is a separate physical element from a patch panel and just a cable that connects the patch panels to switches on one side and network entities on the other and it is not clear if the Applicant is conflating a patch panel with an optical jumper/cable in their claims. It is not even clear if the Applicant is referring to a multi-fiber optical jumper when they recite “optical jumper defines a plurality of fixed optical paths” or if they are referring to a patch panel which actually provides the mapping of optical paths or connections between switches and network ports.
Claim 11 recites the amended limitation “an optical jumper comprising a plurality of optical fibers…” Jong reference is provided to show support for a multi-fiber optical jumper which by design has a plurality of optical fibers in the interest of compact prosecution. Note however, that there is no support in the Applicant’s disclosure for a multi-fiber optical jumper.
Applicant’s specification is lacking in support for the claim limitations as explained in the section on 112 issues in this OA.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because using different claim term such as “another optical jumper” in the dependent claims is still not supported in the specification. The scalable system and its expansion is described using terms like first stage patch panel, second stage patch panel, and so on. Each of these stages simply refer to incrementally adding more ‘network ports’ to the patch panel and reconfiguring the connections between the ports in some manner on the patch panel that connect the switches and the ‘network ports.’ The drawings are simplistic and show basic patch panel connectivity between switches and incrementally added ‘network ports.’ This idea finds support in the cited references and in practice.
While Rauch reference provides full support for the simplistic expansion idea claimed which is that of an incremental coupling of various devices, Gandham reference provides even more clear support for the claimed invention. Figure 2 (reproduced below) in Gandham is similar to the Figures 2-5 in the Applicant’s specification, though with more clear details.
Figure 2 from Gandham reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
577
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gandham reference also shares the same motivation of the claimed invention as described in Applicant Specification Par.[0022].
Gandham in Col. 5, lines 24-36: “(20) Referring now to FIG. 2, a block diagram of an optical circuit switched network architecture 200 is shown, according to one implementation. Network architecture 200 may be implemented, for example, within a datacenter, such as datacenters 102 shown in FIG. 1. However, network architecture 200 may also be deployed in other fiber rich facilities such as high-degree backbone points of presence (POP) or in other fiber optic networks. In general, network architecture 200 utilizes a hybrid approach that utilizes both optical and electrical switching infrastructure. Dynamic control of an OCS 210 allows the topology of network architecture 200 to be reconfigured dynamically without having to rewire the network.”
Claims 4-8, 22, 16-21, and 26 appear to refer to modifying the underlying connectivity between the switches and the ‘network ports’, and it appears that these limitations are referring to programmatically controlling port to port connections within the patch panel. Both references, Rauch and Gandham, describe such a patch panel. Gandham with reference to Figure 2 and the associated description supports the claimed invention as recited in these claims.
The rejection under 112a is significant and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The amended limitations in the independent claims lack support as described in the Applicant disclosure and it is not clear if the Applicant is conflating the patch panel with the optical jumper and if they were to replace the term optical jumper with the actual patch panel in the claims to define the mappings, the cited references and others provide support for that. The limitations in claims 4-8, 22, 16-21, and 26 appear to refer to modifying the underlying connectivity between the switches and the ‘network ports’ using a programmable patch panel and yet the patch panel is not even recited to function as such. And the notion of scalability as claimed appears to simply refer to incremental addition of network components to patch panel ports which is the case in any situation at some point in time as practiced in the field of reference and relevant prior arts. It is not clear based on the claims and the subject matter described in the specification what the inventive idea is that is distinguishable from the prior arts or the technology as practiced.
Previous 101 rejection in particular for claim 11 and its dependents is withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendment.
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 PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights