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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-15, 17-20 and 22 are 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.
Claim 1 recites in line 28 the limitations “the first pair” and “the third pair”, in line 31 the limitation “the second pair” and in line 32 the limitation “the fourth pair”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claims 10 and 15 have the same issue.
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, 6-10, 12-15, 18-20 and 22 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 Kirkpatrick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0254652 A1), Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0344545 A1) and Hessong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0295655 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B a system comprising: a plurality of network devices comprising a first network device (spine switch S1), a second network device (spine switch S2), a third network device (leaf switch L1—see FIG. 6A for the label L1 and L2), and a fourth network device (leaf switch L2); and an optical shuffle box (shuffle box S with shuffle fabric SF) that connects the plurality of network devices together, the optical shuffle box having a single-pass demultiplexing (demultiplexers DEMUX1, DEMUX2) and multiplexing structure (MUX1 and MUX2) with two multiplexer layers, wherein the optical shuffle box comprises: four or more optical connectors (the 8 squares at the top and the bottom of the shuffle box), comprising at least a first optical connector, a second optical connector, a third optical connector, and a fourth optical connector, connected to respective network devices of the plurality of network devices, wherein fibers (Minkenberg et al. teaches in paragraph [0014] that a fiber can be used to carry a WDM signal) connected to the four or more optical connectors carry a plurality of optical signals (WDM signals to be demultiplexed by the demultiplexers or WDM signals multiplexed by the multiplexers), wherein the first optical connector (the one connected to SC1) 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 the first network device into a plurality of optical signals with different wavelengths,
wherein the second optical connector comprises a second demultiplexer that is a component of the first multiplexer layer and is configured to separate a second plurality of optical signals from a second WDM signal received from the second network device into a plurality of optical signals with different wavelengths,
wherein the third optical connector comprises a first multiplexer (MUX1) that is a component of a second multiplexer layer of the two multiplexer layers and is configured to combine signals received from the first demultiplexer and the second demultiplexer
into a third WDM signal and transfer the third WDM signal to the third network device (L1), and wherein the fourth optical connector comprises a second multiplexer (MUX2) that is a component of the second multiplexer layer and is configured to combine the optical signals received from the first demultiplexer and the second demultiplexer
into a fourth WDM signal and transfer the fourth WDM signal to the fourth network device (L2); and connections that route an optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer to the first multiplexer, route an optical signal demultiplexed from the first WDM signal from the first demultiplexer to the second multiplexer, route an optical signal demultiplexed from the second WDM signal from the second demultiplexer to the first multiplexer, and route an optical signal demultiplexed from the second WDM signal from the second demultiplexer to the second multiplexer.
The difference between Minkenberg et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Minkenberg et al. only teach one optical signal, instead of a subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths, from DEMUX1 to MUX1, one optical signal from DEMUX1 to MUX2, one optical signal from DEMUX2 to MUX1 and one optical signal from DEMUX2 to MUX2; and (b) Minkenberg et al. does not explicitly teaches that the connections in FIG. 6B are waveguides or fibers.
Kirkpatrick et al. teaches in FIG. 3 connections between spine switches and leaf switches where there can be a plurality of connections between a spine switch and a leaf switch, in this particular case, there are six (6) connections between a spine switch and a leaf switch. That is, each spine port or leaf port supports 12 channels. Furthermore, Wang et al. teaches in FIG. 2 multiplexer and demultiplexer that support 12 wavelength channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al. with the system of Minkenberg et al. to use a pair of optical signals between a spine switch and a leaf switch because the approach increases the capacity between the spine switch and leaf switch and support high-capacity switches. 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 a plurality of channels/wavelengths between a spine switch and a leaf switch, as taught by Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al., in the system of Minkenberg et al.
To address Applicant’s argument filed 30 July 2026, the Examiner modified the table below paragraph [0031] of Minkenberg et al. based on the combination of Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al. with 12 wavelengths for each of the multiplexers and demultiplexers. An entry in column i and row j means the wavelengths are routed from DEMUXi to MUXj.
DEMUX1
DEMUX2
DEMUX3
DEMUX4
MUX1
λ1, λ5, λ9
λ4, λ8, λ12
λ3, λ7, λ11
λ2, λ6, λ10
MUX2
λ2, λ6, λ10
λ1, λ5, λ9
λ4, λ8, λ12
λ3, λ7, λ11
MUX3
λ3, λ7, λ11
λ2, λ6, λ10
λ1, λ5, λ9
λ4, λ8, λ12
MUX4
λ4, λ8, λ12
λ3, λ7, λ11
λ4, λ6, λ10
λ1, λ5, λ9
From the above table, the first subset comprises λ1, λ5, λ9; second subset comprises λ2, λ6, λ10; third subset comprises λ4, λ8, λ12; fourth subset comprises λ1, λ5, λ9.
The combination of Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al. still fails to teach that the connections in FIG. 6B are waveguides or fibers. 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., Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al. because Hessong et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang 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., Kirkpatrick et al. and Wang et al.
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 and the second network device are spine switches; and the third network device and the fourth network device are leaf switches.
Regarding claim 8, it is obvious to modify FIG. 3 of Kirkpatrick et al. to support only 4 channels for each port and have 2 channels between a spine switch and a leaf switch. The four network devices of claim 1 correspond to the first spine switch (counting from the top), the third spine switch, and first leaf switch and the third leaf switch.
Regarding claim 9, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B the third 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 network device and the second network device are spine switches, the third network device and the fourth network device are leaf switches; 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 and the second network device are spine switches; and the third network device and the fourth network device are leaf switches.
Regarding claim 14, it is obvious to modify FIG. 3 of Kirkpatrick et al. to support only 4 channels for each port and have 2 channels between a spine switch and a leaf switch. The four network devices of claim 1 correspond to the first spine switch (counting from the top), the third spine switch, and first leaf switch and the third leaf switch.
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 which includes the optical shuffle box of instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Minkenberg et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the first network device and the second network device are spine switches, the third network device and the fourth network device are leaf switches; 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 and the second network device are spine switches; and the third network device and the fourth network device are leaf switches.
Regarding claim 20, it is obvious to modify FIG. 3 of Kirkpatrick et al. to support only 4 channels for each port and have 2 channels between a spine switch and a leaf switch. The four network devices of claim 1 correspond to the first spine switch (counting from the top), the third spine switch, and first leaf switch and the third leaf switch.
Regarding claim 22, Hessong et al. suggests in FIG. 3A and paragraph [0049] that the interconnection assembly 18 may be housed in a fiber optical module 52. Furthermore, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction or separate, interconnected modules would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang et al. and Hessong et al. as applied to claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, 18-20 and 22 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0219756 A1).
Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang et al. and Hessong et al. have discussed above in regard to claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, 18-20 and 22. The difference between Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang et al. and Hessong et al. and the claimed invention is that Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang 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., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang et al. and Hessong et al. because Zhang et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Minkenberg et al., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang 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., Kirkpatrick et al., Wang et al. and Hessong et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Minkenberg is directed to "[a] switch for switching a signal between a source client device and a destination client device." (Minkenberg, Abstract). Minkenberg teaches that "each of the plurality of demultiplexers are configured to direct its respective plurality of signals to the output multiplexers in a cyclic manner." (Minkenberg, [0031]). In Table 1, Minkenberg's cyclic routing sends, for example, DEMUX1 11 to MUX1, X2 to MUX2, X3 to MUX3, and X4 to MUX4, and sends DEMUX2 X4 to MUX1, 11 to MUX2, X2 to MUX3, and X3 to MUX4. (See Minkenberg, [0031], Table 1). Minkenberg further teaches that "DEMUX1 to DEMUX4 direct their outputs in a cyclic manner." (Minkenberg, [0104]).
This cyclic routing of individual wavelengths is not the same as "the first subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," "the second subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," "the third subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," and "the fourth subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths" as recited in claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Minkenberg does not teach or suggest all of the features of claim 1 as amended.
Kirkpatrick does not remedy the shortcomings of Minkenberg with respect to claim 1. Kirkpatrick is directed to an "optical network for cluster computing" that "groups multiple optical connections or channels on one multi-fiber optical connector." (Kirkpatrick, Abstract, [0018]). This grouping of channels on a multi-fiber connector is not the same as the above-recited wavelength pairing. Kirkpatrick does not describe demultiplexing WDM signals into wavelength pairs, nor routing those pairs to multiplexers as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Kirkpatrick does not cure the deficiencies of Minkenberg.
Wang does not remedy the shortcomings of Minkenberg with respect to claim 1. Wang is directed to "[a] wavelength division multiplexing structure" comprising "a first wavelength division multiplexer and a second wavelength division multiplexer," where each "comprises N filtering units." (Wang, Abstract). Wang's WDM filtering-unit arrangement is not the same as the wavelength pairing recited in claim 1, in which the first and second demultiplexers route wavelength pairs to the multiplexers. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Wang does not cure the deficiencies of Minkenberg in combination with Kirkpatrick.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that this cyclic routing of individual wavelengths is not the same as "the first subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," "the second subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," "the third subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths," and "the fourth subset of optical signals comprising at least two different wavelengths" as recited in claim 1 as amended, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
skl17 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights