DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on December 24, 2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending (claims 13-20 are “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to a non-elected Group).
Claims 1-12 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claim 1 as the sole independent.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 10, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (eleven (11) pages) were received on May 31, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
The following section is not a formal “Claim Objections” to the claims. However, and because the claims 1-12 appear to be direct translations from a foreign Chinese) patent document into English, Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to carefully and thoroughly review all claims 1-12 for minor informalities, awkward language, and/or typos. Any such informality should be corrected if it comes to Applicant’s attention. However, the Examiner acquiesces that Applicant is their own lexicographer and therefore may leave the claims as translated. Cooperation and review of claims 1-12 is respectfully requested.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Innolight CN 212160162 U (see attached IDS filed on 10/10/23). Note also the INTL Written Opinion from PCT CN ‘053, which is fully incorporated in reference.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, Innolight CN 212160162 U teaches (ABS; Figs. 3-5; corresponding text, in particular Description, paragraphs [0025] – [0026], all pages 1-6 of English translation cited in IDS 10/10/23; Claims) an optical module (overall in Figs. 3-5, paras [0025] – [0026]), comprising: an upper shell 11; a lower shell 12 covered with the upper shell and providing an accommodating cavity with the upper shell (negative space between 11 and 12 exploded examples but creates a “cavity” when attached); an optical engine 30 (the optical assembly as an “engine”) disposed in the accommodating cavity, the optical engine being configured to realize emission or reception of light (an optical module); an optical port bracket (optical connective “ports” within 40 in Fig. 3, and using 60/70) disposed on a bottom surface of the lower shell (when attached), and a side surface of the optical port bracket proximate to the lower shell abutting against the bottom surface of the lower shell; and an optical fiber adapter 31 / 32, an end of the optical fiber adapter being connected to the optical engine, and another end of the optical fiber adapter being connected to the optical port bracket (features 31/32 are between the port bracket 40 / 60 / 70 and the optical engine 30, see Figs. 3-5); wherein the upper shell includes: a cover plate (to right in Figs. as part of 11); at least one upper side plate (at left of Figs. near 13) connected to the cover plate, and the upper side plate extending toward a direction proximate to the lower shell; at least one first limiting member disposed at an end of the upper side plate proximate to the optical port bracket; the lower shell includes: a bottom plate (to center/right of Figs. near 14); at least one lower side plate connected to the bottom plate (at left under 40), and the lower side plate extending toward a direction proximate to the upper shell; the optical port bracket includes: a plurality of side walls, at least one side wall of two opposite side walls among the plurality of side walls being fixedly connected to the first limiting member; and at least one second limiting boss disposed on the at least one side wall of the two opposite side walls among the plurality of side walls (connective features protruding or projection for contact).
Regarding independent claim 1, CN ‘162 does not expressly and exactly teach the combination of connection features (for the connecting / snapping / latching of the upper and lower shells / cover plates / lids) at least one first limiting boss disposed on an end of the lower side plate proximate to the optical port bracket (positioning of the boss), and in which during the connection of the upper and lower shell features 11 / 12 of CN ‘162, in which a side surface of the second limiting boss proximate to the optical engine is abutting against the first limiting boss.
However, such connectivity of components for the upper shell and lower shell 11/12 in CN ‘162 would have been viewed as obvious design choices and implementations in the optical communications art for the following reasons: the overall adaptable positionings of the optical fiber adapter 31 / 32 and the optical port bracket 40 (using 60/70 for connection) would have been recognized, because the tolerance between the lower shell 12 and the fiber adapter would have reduces the reliance on such features and also improved the ultimate connection between the upper and lower shells/housings when attached. Furthermore, using a first limiting boss and a second limiting boss proximate to the optical engine for the purpose of abutting each other would have allowed guided connection by a technician to create the protection cavity for the optical engine. Therefore, the motivation and rationale to combine features of the second limiting boss positioned as claimed would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application. The fiber adapter features (and the port bracket) would be more accessible and easier positioned within the housing by such limiting boss (1st and 2nd) integration. For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over the disclosures of CN ‘162 alone. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Further regarding dependent claims 2-12, the overall hypothetical device combination of features used with the rationale for independent claim 1 and CN ‘162 must be considered for the obviousness of those dependencies.
Regarding dependent claim 2, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the plurality of side walls of the optical port bracket include: a first side wall proximate to the optical engine; a second side wall disposed opposite to the first side wall; a third side wall connected to the first side wall and the second side wall; a fourth side wall disposed opposite to the third side wall, the at least one second limiting boss includes a plurality of second limiting bosses, and the plurality of second limiting bosses are disposed on the third side wall and the fourth side wall, respectively; a side surface of the optical port bracket proximate to the upper shell is connected to the upper shell, the optical port bracket further includes a first surface, and the first surface includes: a first sub-surface proximate to the upper shell; and a second sub-surface proximate to the upper shell; wherein the first sub-surface is farther away from the lower shell than the second sub-surface, the second limiting boss extends in a direction from the second side wall to the first side wall, the second limiting boss protrudes in a direction away from a corresponding side wall, and a side surface of the second limiting boss proximate to the lower shell abuts against the bottom plate of the lower shell, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 2) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the optical port bracket further includes: a mounting hole disposed on the first side wall; and a slot penetrating the second side wall and communicating with the mounting hole, the optical fiber adapter being connected to the slot through the mounting hole, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 3) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that a side surface of the first limiting boss away from the optical engine abuts against a corresponding second limiting boss of the plurality of second limiting bosses; the at least one first limiting member includes a plurality of first limiting members; and two first limiting bosses among the plurality of first limiting bosses satisfy one of the following: opposite side walls of the two first limiting bosses abut against the third side wall and the fourth side wall of the optical port bracket, respectively; and gaps exist between the opposite side walls of the two first limiting bosses and the third side wall and the fourth side wall of the optical port bracket, respectively, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 4) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that a side surface of the first limiting boss proximate to the upper shell abuts against a side surface of the first limiting member proximate to the lower shell, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 5) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the lower shell further includes at least one second limiting member, the second limiting member is disposed on the lower side plate, and the first side wall of the optical port bracket abuts against the second limiting member, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 6) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the optical port bracket further includes a fifth side wall connected to the first sub-surface and the second sub-surface; and a side surface of the upper shell proximate to the optical port bracket abuts against the fifth side wall, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 7) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the optical module further comprises an unlocking component, the unlocking component including at least one unlocking handle and at least one elastic piece disposed on the unlocking handle; and a side surface of the first limiting member away from the optical port bracket is provided with a first groove, a side wall of the first groove proximate to the lower shell is at least partially open, so as to provide a first notch, and the elastic piece is assembled into the first groove through the first notch, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 8) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the upper shell further includes at least one limiting column disposed on the upper side plate; and the lower shell further includes at least one first limiting surface, the upper side plate is provided with the first limiting surface, and the first limiting surface is proximate to the optical port bracket and abuts against the limiting column, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 9) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the lower shell further includes at least one second limiting surface, the lower side plate is provided with the second limiting surface, the second limiting surface is proximate to the upper shell, and the first limiting surface is correspondingly connected to the second limiting surface; a side surface of the first limiting member proximate to the lower shell and a side surface of the limiting column proximate to the lower shell abut against the second limiting surface, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 10) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that the upper shell further includes: a through groove disposed between the first limiting member and the limiting column and penetrating the upper side plate along a thickness direction of the upper side plate, an end of the groove facing the lower shell is at least partially open, so as to provide a second notch, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 11) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it would have further been obvious based on the construct of CN ‘162 so that an end of the first limiting member away from the lower shell is provided with a first protrusion and a second groove; and in a direction of the first limiting member away from the lower shell, the first protrusion protrudes from the second groove, because such features are implied by the hypothetical device or are obvious design choices based on the overall attached / combined upper to lower shell of CN ‘162. KSR. There is no specific criticality or resultant that serves any patentable distinction (for claim 12) over CN ‘162 viewing independent claim 1.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-E, which pertain to the state of the art of optical communication modules that include disconnected upper and lower plates / lids / shells / housings that can be later attached to create a recess or void for housing internal optical sub-components such as optical ports and fiber adapters inside.
Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to amend substantial structural and/or functional features of the disclosed design into at least independent claim 1, in order to obviate the very close prior art (to Innolight CN ‘162) and the above obviousness rejection to claims 1-13. Note the Figs. 3-5 of CN ‘162 in particular.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 February 20, 2026