DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more pockets configured to receive one or more Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) gaskets” (in claim 23) and “strain relief features” (in claim 27) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Reference numerals 208 and 210 in figure 2B are supposed to be the claimed pockets and/or gaskets, however, it is unclear what 208 and 210 points to. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “one or more pockets configured to receive one or more Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) gaskets” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Regarding claim 27, it is not clearly understood what exactly the “strain relief features” are …and how they are configured to support the plurality of cables exiting the park module during shipping and transport of the network element”. The Examiner temporality interprets the plurality strain relief features to be some sort of cable holding features.
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 1-3, 9 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclair et al. U.S. Pub. 2020/0341218 (hereinafter D1) in view of Cooke et al. U.S. Patent 11,294,136 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Umematsu et al. U.S. Patent 10,154,609 (hereinafter D3) and in further view of Mori U.S. Patent 8,767,382 (hereinafter D4).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a cable parking system for a network element, comprising:
a filler card (80; figure 8; see par[0053])configured to be inserted in a slot (one of shot shown in figure 14) of a plurality of slots (see figure 14) of a shelf (enclosure of 200; figure 14) of the network element (200; figure 14), the filler card being inserted in lieu of (see par[0053]) a working card (see par[0053]); and
a faceplate (82; figure 8) positioned on the filler card.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a park module configured to attach to the faceplate of the filler card , the park module being configured to receive and hold a plurality of cables in a parked state for connectivity between the plurality of slots until a working card is installed, wherein the network element is pre-cabled prior to shipment utilizing the cable parking system, wherein connections of some or all of the plurality of cables are configurable between modules in the shelf or between modules in different shelves, and wherein cable ends of the plurality of cables are parked in the park module for future connection.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D2, in the same field of endeavor, suggests a park module (see above annotated (figure 3) positioned at the front of an insertable module (see above figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the filler card of D1 with a park module configured to attach to the faceplate (front portion) of the filler card, as suggested by D2, such that the park module would be configured to receive and hold a plurality of cables in a parked state for connectivity between the plurality of slots until a working card is installed, for the convenience of cable management/connectivity.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein the network element is pre-cabled prior to shipment utilizing the cable parking system, wherein connections of some or all of the plurality of cables are configurable between modules in the shelf or between modules in different shelves, and wherein cable ends of the plurality of cables are parked in the park module for future connection.
D3 suggests the idea of having a device/element pre-cabled (see column 8, lines 20-28) prior to shipment to avoid on-site assembly.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the same pre-cabled concept for the system of D1/D2, such that the network element would be pre-cabled prior to shipment, as suggested by D3, to avoid or minimize on-site part assembly.
D4, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a server rack, which suggests connections of some or all of the plurality of cables (10; figure 2) are configurable (implicitly taught in figure 2) between modules in the shelf or between modules in different shelves (shelves holding different servers 5; figure 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement the connections of some or all of the plurality of cables of the system of D1/D2 to be configurable between modules in the shelf or between modules in different shelves, as suggested by D4, to enhance the versatility of configurations/connections of said system.
Note: the claimed limitation “network element is pre-cabled” does not necessarily relate to the “plurality of cables” parked in the park module of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, D1/D2/D3/D4 teaches the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card is inserted in lieu of a working card (see above rejection of claim 1) that includes one or more of a client card, a line card, a fabric card (intended use), and a combination thereof, the filler card lacking active circuitry (see above rejection of claim 1) or connectors and being configured solely to occupy the slot to maintain airflow balance (see par[0004] of D1) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) integrity (see par[0004] of D1), and wherein the park module supports the plurality of cable (see above rejection of claim 1) for a future working card.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of D1/D2/D3/D4 would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the shelf utilizes the plurality of cables (see above rejection of claim 1) for the connectivity in lieu of a backplane for data.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of D1/D2/D3/D4 would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card and the park module are present with the network element operating, such that the filler card and the park module support airflow (see par[0004] of D1) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) protection for the shelf (see par[0004] of D1).
Regarding claim 26, the modification of D1/D2/D3/D4 would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the shelf further includes a backplane (implicitly taught in figure 14 of D1) configured to carry one or more control signals between a control card (implicitly taught in figure 14 of D1) and the plurality of slots (see figure 14 of D1), and one or more power distribution busbars (implicitly taught in figure 14 of D1) configured to provide power to the plurality of slots.
Even though, D1/D2/D3/D4 does not specifically teach the one or more power distribution busbars being separate from the backplane, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the power distribution busbars separately from the backplane, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, to the ease of part replacement. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 27, the modification of D1/D2/D3/D4 would also result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the park module includes one or more strain relief features (52; figure 3 of D2) configured to support the plurality of cables exiting the park module during shipping and transport of the network element.
Regarding claim 28, the modification of D1/D2/D3/D4 would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the park module would be easily attached to the faceplate of the filler card by a screw (similarly as shown in below figure 6 of D1).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
12. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclair et al. U.S. Pub. 2020/0341218 in view of Cooke et al. (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Umematsu et al. U.S. Patent 10,154,609 (hereinafter D3) and in further view of Mori U.S. Patent 8,767,382 (hereinafter D4) and in further view of Gupta et al. U.S. Patent 10,761,281 (hereinafter D5).
Regarding claim 24, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D3/D4 teaches the cable parking system of claim 1.
However, D1/D2/D3/D4 does not specifically teach the faceplate of the filler card having a plurality of holes sized and positioned to direct airflow toward a top region and a bottom region of the slot and to restrict airflow through a middle region of the slot, such that airflow is directed toward adjacent cards in the shelf.
As best understood from figure 12 and par[0059] of the current application, the claimed “holes” are the holes are shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
713
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
From above figure 12, the claimed limitation of claim 24 simply refers to the above holes on the faceplate.
PNG
media_image4.png
350
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
D5 teaches a similar structure, which suggests the equivalent holes (45; figure 4A) sized and positioned to direct airflow (see paragraph bridging columns 7-8) through a faceplate (see above annotated figure 4A) and into the interior of a card (see figure 4A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the faceplate of the filler card of D1/D2/D3/D4 with a plurality of holes sized and positioned to direct airflow, as suggested by D5, through the faceplate and toward a top region and a bottom region of the slot and to restrict airflow through a middle region of the slot, such that airflow is directed toward adjacent cards in the shelf.
Regarding claim 25, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D3/D4 teaches the cable parking system of claim 1.
However, D1/D2/D3/D4 does not specifically teach the park module includes a plurality of air holes configured to balance airflow through the slot when the filler card and the park module are installed in the slot.
For similar reason as explained in the above rejection of claim 24, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the park module of D1/D2/D3/D4 with a plurality of holes, as suggested by D5, configured to balance airflow through the slot when the filler card and the park module are installed in the slot.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4-8, 21-23 and 29-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest the cable parking system of claim 1, further comprising one or more pluggable module holders, each configured to insert in the park module and each configured to hold one or more pluggable modules with a cable connected thereto.
Claims 5-8 and 29-31 are dependent from claim 4, and therefore, are objected-but-allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card includes one or more electrical contacts positioned to engage one or more corresponding guide pins on a backplane of the network element, the one or more electrical contacts being configured to complete a short circuit through the one or more guide pins to indicate presence of the filler card in the slot.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is dependent from claim 21, and therefore, is objected-but-allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card includes a baseplate and a faceplate having an extrusion profile, the extrusion profile defining one or more pockets configured to receive one or more Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) gaskets, and wherein the faceplate is wrapped around at least three sides of the baseplate to form a Faraday cage.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights