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 § 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 2, 4, 16-17 and 21 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the waveguide routes a second optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer of the first optical connector to a second multiplexer of a fourth optical connector of the three or more optical connectors, wherein the second multiplexer is a component of the second multiplexer layer, and wherein the second optical signal comprises a second wavelength” in lines 1-6 of the claim. The Examiner fails to find support for this limitation (i.e. using the same waveguide to route optical signal to two different places) in instant specification and the limitation is considered new subject matter.
Claim 16 recites a limitation similar to the limitation of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the optical shuffle box is configured to enlarge an effective radix of at least one network device of the plurality of network devices by shuffling a plurality of inputs at the first optical connector to a plurality of outputs at the second optical connector” in lines 2-5 of the claim. The Examiner fails to find support for this limitation in instant specification and the limitation is considered new subject matter.
Claim 17 recites a limitation similar to the limitation of claim 4.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the optical shuffle box, by virtue of having the two multiplexer layers, has a lower signal reduction on the plurality of optical signals compared to optical shuffle boxes comprising a greater number of multiplexer layers” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The Examiner fails to find support for this limitation in instant specification and the limitation is considered new subject matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0329288 A1) in view of Hessong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0295655 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B a system a comprising: a plurality of network devices (spine switches S1-S4 and leaf switches L1-L4); and an optical shuffle box (shuffle fabric SF, or labeled as connectorized WDM shuffle box) that connects the plurality of network devices together, the optical shuffle box having two multiplexer layers, wherein the optical shuffle box comprises: three or more optical connectors (the 8 squares at the top and the bottom of the shuffle box) connected to respective network devices of the plurality of network devices, wherein [[fibers connected]] connection to the three or more optical connectors carry a plurality of optical signals (they are WDM signals), wherein a first optical connector (the one connected to SC1) of the three or more optical connectors comprises a first demultiplexer (DEMUX1) that is a component of a first multiplexer layer of the two multiplexer layers and is configured to separate a first plurality of optical signals from a first wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) signal received from a first network device (S1) of the plurality of network devices, and wherein a second optical connector (the one connected to cable C1) of the three or more optical connectors comprises a first multiplexer (MUX1) that is a component of a second multiplexer layer of the two multiplexer layers and is configured to combine a second plurality of optical signals into a second WDM signal, wherein the second plurality of optical signals comprise at least one optical signal of the first plurality of optical signals (there is a connection between DEMUX1 and MUX1) and at least one additional optical signal from a third optical connector (the one connected to S2) of the three or more optical connectors. The difference between Minkenberg et al. and the claimed invention is that Minkenberg et al. does not explicitly teaches that the connections in FIG. 6B are waveguides or fibers. However, Minkenberg et al. teaches in paragraph [0014] that a fiber can be used to carry a WDM signal. Therefore, the connections between the network devices and the connectors can use fibers. The modified system of Minkenberg et al. still fails to teach a waveguide that routes the at least one optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer of the first multiplexer layer to the first multiplexer of the second multiplexer layer, wherein the at least one optical signal comprises a first wavelength.
Hessong et al. teaches in FIG. 3A a fiber optic module 52 for connecting spine switches and leaf switches. FIG. 3A comprises connections 32U between the demultiplexers 20S and multiplexers 24L. Hessong et al. teaches in paragraph [0040] that optical fibers are used for the connections 32U. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hessong et al. with the modified system of Minkenberg et al. because Hessong et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Minkenberg et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fibers for the connections between the demultiplexers and the multiplexers, as taught by Hessong et al., in the modified system of Minkenberg et al.
Regarding claim 2, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B connecting a second optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer of the first optical connector to a second multiplexer (MUX2) of a fourth optical connector of the three or more optical connectors (there is a connection between DEMUX1 and MUX2), wherein the second multiplexer is a component of the second multiplexer layer, and wherein the second optical signal comprises a second wavelength.
Regarding claim 3, Minkenberg et al. teaches in paragraph [0031] that the demultiplexer outputs four different wavelength signals.
Regarding claim 5, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first optical connector connects to a first network device (spine switches S1) of the plurality of network devices and the second optical connector connects to a second network device (leaf switch L1) of the plurality of network devices.
Regarding claim 6, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a two-layer network wherein the spine switches and the leaf switches are in different layers.
Regarding claim 7, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first network device is a spine switch and the second network device is a leaf switch.
Regarding claim 8, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B and paragraph [0031] that the first WDM signal comprise four different wavelengths signals.
Regarding claim 9, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B the second optical connector multiplexes at least two optical signals of different wavelengths.
Claim 10 is rejected based on the same reason for rejection of claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first optical connector connects to a first network device (spine switches S1) of the plurality of network devices and the second optical connector connects to a second network device (leaf switch L1) of the plurality of network devices; the spine switch and the leaf switch are in different layers as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Minkenberg et al.
Regarding claim 13, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first network device is a spine switch and the second network device is a leaf switch.
Regarding claim 14, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B and paragraph [0031] that the first WDM signal comprise four different wavelengths signals.
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B connecting a second optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer of the first optical connector to a second multiplexer (MUX2) of a fourth optical connector of the three or more optical connectors (there is a connection between DEMUX1 and MUX2), wherein the second multiplexer is a component of the second multiplexer layer, and wherein the second optical signal comprises a second wavelength.
Regarding claim 18, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first optical connector connects to a first network device (spine switches S1) of the plurality of network devices and the second optical connector connects to a second network device (leaf switch L1) of the plurality of network devices; the spine switch and the leaf switch are in different layers as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Minkenberg et al.
Regarding claim 19, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first network device is a spine switch and the second network device is a leaf switch.
Regarding claim 20, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B and paragraph [0031] that the first WDM signal comprise four different wavelengths signals.
Regarding claim 21, since the combination of Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. has the same structure of claim 1, it also has the same feature, i.e. having a lower signal reduction on the plurality of optical signals compared to optical shuffle boxes comprising a greater number of multiplexer layers, as recited in claim 21.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-21 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0219756 A1).
Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. have discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-21. The difference between Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. and the claimed invention is that Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. do not teach a Lucent Connector (LC). Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 1A a fiber shuffle box for connecting various devices. The shuffle box is connected to other devices via connectors. Zhang et al. teaches in paragraph [0006] lucent connector (LC) connection line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhang et al. with the modified system of Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. because Zhang et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LC connection lines, as taught by Zhang et al., for interconnecting devices in the modified system of Minkenberg et al. and Hessong et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant argues that Zhang fails to disclose at least, “wherein the optical shuffle box is configured to enlarge an effective radix of at least one network device of the plurality of network devices,” as recited in claim 4 as amended, which “allows the cluster in a data center to scale better, with less power and cost.” (Specification, [0021]). However, paragraph [0021] of the specification fails to teach the limitation “by shuffling a plurality of inputs at the first optical connector to a plurality of outputs at the second optical connector” as recited in claim 4 and, therefore, the limitation is considered as new subject matter. In fact, none of the FIGs. of instant specification teaches that there are a plurality of output connections at any of the plurality of connectors.
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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl16 January 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635