DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 10/14/2025.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivaud et al. U.S. Patent 10,674,241 in view of Glover et al. U.S. Patent 6,466,724.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rivaud et al. teaches a cable parking system (shown in figure 7) for a network element (rack 60; figure 7), comprising:
a filler card (70; figure 7) configured to be inserted in a slot of a plurality of slots (see figure 7; slots accommodates filler cards 70) of a shelf (formed by 62; figure 7) of the network element (60), the filler card (70) being inserted in lieu of (see paragraph bridging columns 12-13) a working card (see figures 7, 8 and 22).
However, Rivaud et al. does not specifically teach a park module configured to attach to a faceplate of the filler card, the park module 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.
Glover, teaches a similar structure, which suggests a park module (40; figures 1B and 2A) configured to attach to a faceplate (22; figure 1B) of the filler structure (10; figure 1B), the park module (40) configured to receive and hold a plurality of cables (43 and 45; figure 2A) in a parked state for connectivity.
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 Rivaud et al. with a park module configured to attach to a faceplate of the filler card, as suggested by Glover, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Rivaud et al. in view of Glover teaches the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card is inserted in lieu of a working card (see paragraph bridging columns 12-13; and see above rejection of claim 1) that includes one or more of a client card, a line card, a fabric card (column 1, lines 25-38), and a combination thereof, the filler card lacking active circuitry (see paragraph bridging columns 12-13) or connectors and being configured solely to occupy (see figure 22) the slot to maintain airflow balance (by default) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) integrity (be default), and wherein the park module supports the plurality of cable (see above rejection of claim 1) for a future working card.
Regarding claim 3, Rivaud et al. in view of Glover teaches 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 4, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, further comprising one or more pluggable module holders (46; figure 2A of Glover), each configured to insert (see figure 2A of Glover) in the park module and each configured to hold one or more pluggable modules with a cable (43 or 45; figure 2A of Glover) connected thereto.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 4, wherein a pluggable module (46; figures 1B and 2A of Glover) of the one or more pluggable modules is a Quad Small Form Factor Pluggable (QSFP) (see column 9, lines 43-52 of Rivaud et al.), Small Form Factor Pluggable (SFP), Octal SFP (OSFP), or a variant thereof.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 4, wherein the one or more pluggable module holders (46; figures 1B and figure 2A of Glover) are removable from the park module (40) with the plurality of cables (43 and 45) attached thereto, for replacing the filler card with a working card that includes one or more of a client card, a line card, a fabric card (column 1, lines 25-38), and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of cables include any of an Active Electrical Cable (AEC), Active Optical Cable (AOC) (see column 3, lines 50-60 of Glover), and Direct Attach Cable (DAC).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 4, wherein the one or more pluggable module holders protectively support an end (see figure 2A of Glover) of each of the plurality of cables.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 1, wherein the filler card and the park module are present (see figures 7, 8 and 22 of Rivaud et al.) with the network element operating, such that the filler card and the park module support (see figure 22 of Rivaud et al.) airflow and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) protection for the shelf.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover would result in the cable parking system of claim 1.
Even though, the modification of Rivaud et al. in view of Glover does not specifically teach wherein the network element is pre-cabled prior to shipment utilizing the cable parking system, wherein the connections of some or all of the plurality of cables are configurable between modules in a shelf or between modules in different shelves, and wherein the cables ends are parked in the park module for future connection, 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 pre-cable said network element prior to shipment, 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 minimize part assembly. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Conclusion
11. 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 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 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights