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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YE (Publication No.: US 2020/0012055 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YE teaches A dual ten gigabit passive optical network small form-factor pluggable plus—DXGS-PONSFP+—optical module projected to be incorporated in a small form-factor—SFP—plus transceiver host of a ten gigabit passive optical network line terminal—XGS-PON-OLT—characterized by comprising: a case (e.g. “quad small form-factor pluggable optical module” as in paragraph [0072] and/or “packaged by using a QSFP” as in paragraph [0086] and/or “OLT” as illustrated in Figure 2) projected to house: two bidirectional optical subassemblies—BOSAs— (e.g. “BOSA” as in paragraph [0006] and throughout), wherein each BOSA is configured to provide connection to a XGS-PON-OLT (e.g. “PON” “OLT” “ONU” as in paragraphs [0002] – [0005] and throughout; “XG-PON” as in paragraph [0048]); each of the BOSAs comprising an SC ferrule (e.g. “an SC receptacle” as in paragraph [0070]) adapted to provide connection to an SC optical fiber connector; a control unit (e.g. “LDD driver” as in paragraph [0071]) comprising connection means, adapted to provide connection to each BOSA, and a microcontroller comprising processing means (e.g. “laser diode driver (LDD) chip” as in paragraph [0071]) configure to control an operation of each BOSA; and a high-speed electrical interface—HSEI— (e.g. “network side interface” coupled with the electrical interface of the “small form-factor pluggable optical module” which provides the “electrical signal” prior to optical conversion “to implement functions such as control, management, and ranging” as in paragraph [0045], [0072]) adapted to provide connection between the microcontroller and a SFP plus transceiver host where the DXGS-PONSFP+ is incorporated.
Regarding claim 2, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 1, wherein each BOSA comprises a laser, adapted to operate at ten gigabit passive optical network—XGS-PON— (e.g. “a gigabit-capable passive optical network (GPON), an XG-PON, or the like” as in paragraph [0048]) downstream wavelength at 9.95 Gbit/s, and a dual rate burst mode receiver (e.g. “25 G, 50 G, 100 G, or a larger rate based on a use requirement” as in paragraph [0049]) adapted to operate at XGS-PON upstream wavelength at 2.48 Gbit/s and 9.95 Gbit/s.
Regarding claim 3, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 2, wherein the control unit comprises: a modulation sub-unit (reference numeral 313, 323 in Figure 3) including two laser driver and limiting amplifier elements (e.g. at least four illustrated in Figure 3), adapted to drive and modulate the lasers and to amplify electrical signals from the dual rate burst mode receiver of each BOSA; and wherein, the microcontroller (e.g. “laser diode driver (LDD) chip” as in paragraph [0071]) is further configured to control the operation of the modulation sub-unit.
Regarding claim 4, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 3, wherein the connection between each BOSA and the respective laser driver and limiting amplifying of each modulation sub-unit is provided through a flex printed circuit board (e.g. “a flexible printed circuit (FPC) board” as in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according claim 1, wherein the HSEI is configured to provided connection to the SFP transceiver host (e.g. “OLT” as illustrated in Figure 2) where the DXGS-PONSFP+ is incorporated by means of a port connector (e.g. “quad small form-factor pluggable optical module” as in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 1, wherein the case comprises the following parts: two SC BOSA supports (reference numeral 340 in Figure 3 for each BOSA) and a case spacer (e.g. any of the outer cases illustrated in Figures 3, 4, and 6-9) to accommodate an installation of the two BOSAs.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 1, wherein a size of the case is standardized in order to fit within a receptacle cage of a SFP plus transceiver host (e.g. “QSFP” as in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches A SFP plus transceiver host comprising at least one DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 1 (e.g. “QSFP” as in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches A XGS-PON-OLT comprising at least one SFP plus transceiver host as claimed in claim 14 (e.g. “QSFP” as in paragraph [0072]).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YE in view of Wang (Publication No.: US 2016/0191166 A1).
Regarding claim 6, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 5, wherein the port connector is comprised by a plurality of pins (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 6), but fails to specifically teach that the microcontroller further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map. However, Wang teaches that this concept is well known in the art (reference numeral 511, 512 in Figure 9; reference numeral 570, 580 in Figure 10, Figure 11 respectively). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize a microcontroller comprising memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map in order to follow the function definition of every contact (as in paragraph [0050] of Wang). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a microcontroller that further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map in Ye as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references and Wang in particular teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 6, wherein the port connector is comprised by twenty pins (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 9 of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 8, wherein the case further comprises: a bottom and a top part (e.g. as in any of the outer cases illustrated in Figures 3, 4, and 6-9) ; but fails to specifically teach one actuator tine adapted to allow an extraction of the DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module from a SFP transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated; a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the DXGS-PONSFP+ module. However, Wang teaches that these concepts are well known in the art (e.g. the pull tab as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize one actuator tine adapted to allow an extraction of the DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module from a SFP transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated; a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the DXGS-PONSFP+ module in order to allow the optical module to inserted and removed from the host cage as suggested by YE and Wang’s use of pluggable modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize one actuator tine adapted to allow an extraction of the DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module from a SFP transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated; a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the DXGS-PONSFP+ module in Ye as taught by Wang.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YE in view of Harney (Publication No.: US 2022/0300721 A1).
Regarding claim 10-12, YE teaches The DXGS-PONSFP+ optical module according to claim 8, but fails to specifically teach that the two SC BOSA supports are made from a plastic material or wherein elements of the case are made from metal, such as zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3 or aluminum. However, Harney teaches that these concepts are well known in the art (e.g. “housing can include metal, plastic, glass, or epoxy, etc., or parts or combinations thereof” as in paragraph [0105]; “aluminum” as in paragraph [0143], [0170]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize two SC BOSA supports made from a plastic material or wherein elements of the case are made from metal, such as zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3 or aluminum in order to suppress EMI (e.g. “aluminum” as in paragraph [0144] of Harney), to comply with an MSA standard (e.g. “metal” as in paragraph [0095] of Harney), and/or, to form a housing parts of which are made of plastic (e.g. “plastic” as in paragraph [0095] of Harney). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize two SC BOSA supports made from a plastic material or wherein elements of the case are made from metal, such as zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3 or aluminum as taught by Harney in YE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/AGUSTIN BELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635