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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner’s prior statement on what has been considered conveyed the wrong meaning. Applicant is correct that the prior art cited in parent applications must be considered, and it has been. Examiner’s intended meaning was that only that which must be considered has been considered. In Applicant’s Remarks received 03/26/2026, Applicant stated that Examiner has “clearly considered each of the U.S. patent applications listed” in the IDS forms. As evidenced by Applicant’s own citation of the MPEP, Examiner is required to consider “information which has been considered by the Office in a parent application.” In context of §609.02(II)(2), “information” refers to the prior art cited during prosecution of the parent applications. While this may include documents relied upon as evidence in support of an argument, where said evidential documents are not cited in an IDS, such evidentiary documents would not be pertinent unless the same argument is raised in response to a rejection in the present application.
Thus, consideration of cited prior art is not inherently the same as consideration of a patent application as a whole. Examiner, as is required, has considered the cited prior art from parent applications: 17/530,574; 16/687,891; 16/135,254; and 15/261,295. The remaining applications cited by Applicant in the pertinent IDS forms have not been considered beyond their corresponding publications as they are not parent applications to the instant application.
Applicant’s traversal of the rejections based on prior art begin on page 8 of the Remarks. Applicant generally contends that the amendments overcome the applied prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has interpreted the amended limitations to require that the upper cable is directly connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot.
As a first issue, Applicant’s own arguments are inconsistent with the annotated FIGS as well as Applicant’s disclosure as filed. Applicant asserts that “an upper connector 20a is located at the same end…of an upper slot that receives an upper transceiver 30 as a connection between the upper connector 20a and cables 22.” Notably, however, the position Applicant has interpreted as “second end” within FIG 5A is not a second end of the upper slot, but is instead a second end of the upper connector. The upper slot, as shown in FIG 5A, ends at the upper connector 20a. Cables 22 are attached to a rear surface of the connector 20a, and are thus outside of the upper slot and therefore cannot be connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot.
Additionally, Applicant’s interpretation of the language is overly narrow and does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the subject matter. The amended claim language may, alternatively, be construed to mean that the upper cable is connected to the upper electrical connector, with the amended limitations merely extending the reference to the upper electrical connector (i.e., “the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot” is a reference to “an upper electrical connector located at the second end of the upper slot” rather than independent references to “the upper electrical connector” and “the second end of the upper slot”).
Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language in view of FIG 5A is consistent with this interpretation because this interpretation merely requires a connection (direct or indirect) between the upper cable and the upper connector, wherein the connector is located at the second end of the upper slot. However, such an interpretation would remain appropriately rejected by Regnier because the limitation would still be anticipated by an indirect connection between the cable and “the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot” via the plug module 100. As such, Regnier continues to anticipate the amended limitation under at least one interpretation of the amended claim language.
Applicant has also amended each independent claim to further recite “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or path.” Applicant has interpreted this limitation to recite “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or an electrical path.” Based on this interpretation, Applicant contends that Regnier fails to disclose the amended limitation because the cables of Regnier are optical rather than electrical. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language is valid, the same language may also be construed as “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or a path” (emphasis added). This would differ from Applicant’s interpretation because “a path” need not be “an electrical path” as interpreted by Applicant. The optical cables of Regnier indisputably provide “a path” for conveyance of signals. As such, Regnier continues to anticipate the amended limitation.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the amended claim language is restricted to Applicant’s interpretation, Regnier would still anticipate “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or electrical path” because col. 6, ll. 10-26 disclose an alternative configuration of plug body 110 “to provide such a plug module that is configured to active copper applications” and further discloses “[a]lternate configured can boost electrical signals (e.g., an active copper module).” Thus, it is evident that Regnier inherently contemplates an alternative embodiment wherein plug module 100 receives an electrical signal from the cables and boosts said signals. Stated another way, Regnier anticipates an alternative embodiment wherein the upper cable “provides an electrical connection or path” as recited by the amended claim.
Applicant provides anticipatory arguments pertaining to a modified rejection under §103 where the newly added limitations are found obvious in view of Regnier. These arguments are moot as Regnier continues to anticipate the amended claims under §102. Nonetheless, Applicant’s broad contention that “one having ordinary skill in the art…would not have had any reason or motivation to modify Regnier…because there would have been no reason or motivation to explain why providing such an arrangement would have been beneficial or otherwise desirable” is transparently nothing more than a conclusory statement. Applicant has provided no evidence in support of the baseless contention, and thus the argument would be wholly unpersuasive even if it weren’t mooted by its lack of relevance to the instant rejection.
Applicant provides no further arguments for the dependent claims, instead asserting they are allowable by virtue of dependency. As shown above, none of the independent claims are in condition for allowance, thus the dependent claims cannot be allowable by virtue of dependency. There being no further arguments, Examiner concludes that the pending rejection, modified as necessary in view of the amendments, remains proper.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 4 previously dependent from claim 3, which is now cancelled. Along with the cancellation of claim 3, claim 4 was amended to instead depend from claim 1. Claim 6 as originally filed depended from and continues to depend from claim 1. Claims 4 and 6 recite identical limitations. As claims 4 and 6 recites identical limitations and depend from the same parent claim, claim 6 is an identical duplicate to claim 4 and will be objected to if claim 4 is found allowable.
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, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant now recites “an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot, wherein the upper cable provides an electrical connection or path.” Applicant has interpreted this limitation to mean that the upper cable is directly connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot. This is not, however, the only plausible construction of the claim as amended.
The amended claim may, alternatively, be construed to mean that the upper cable is connected to the upper electrical connector, with the amended limitations merely extending the reference to the upper electrical connector (i.e., “the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot” is a reference to “an upper electrical connector located at the second end of the upper slot” rather than independent references to “the upper electrical connector” and “the second end of the upper slot”). As such, Regnier continues to anticipate the amended limitation under at least one interpretation of the amended claim language.
Applicant has amended each independent claim to further recite “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or path.” Applicant has interpreted this limitation to recite “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or an electrical path.” Based on this interpretation, Applicant contends that Regnier fails to disclose the amended limitation because the cables of Regnier are optical rather than electrical. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language is valid, the same language may also be construed as “the upper cable provides an electrical connection or a path” (emphasis added). This would differ from Applicant’s interpretation because “a path” need not be “an electrical path” as interpreted by Applicant.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008).
As each of the independent claims may be plausibly constructed in multiple manners, as discussed above (i.e., Applicant’s interpretations and Examiner’s alternative interpretations), the independent claims are indefinite. Each of the remaining dependent claims recite a dependency from one of the independent claims, fail to cure the deficiency discussed above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites “at the second end of the upper slot” in the amended limitations. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 14 recites “a cage…that includes walls defining an upper slot…and defining a lower slot configured to receive a lower transceiver, and that extends between a first end and a second end rearward of the first end” (emphasis by Examiner). This limitation was previously interpreted to mean that the lower slot extends between a first end and a second end. Upon further consideration, it is not clear what the bolded portion is meant to reference. The comma before “and” would suggest that the limitation modifies something other than “a lower slot,” but the word “that” suggests it is a singular element. Thus, “a first end and a second end” cannot be applied to both the upper slot and the lower slot, and does not appear to be applied to just the lower slot. As such, it would appear that “a first end and a second end” refer instead to “a cage.”
As such, there is no proper antecedent basis for “the second end of the lower slot” or “the second end of the upper slot” as recited by claim 14. Claims 16-20 depend from claim 14, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore also rejected for the same reason. For purposes of examination, claim 14 will be read as if it instead recited “a second end of the lower slot” and “a second end of the upper slot” in the respective portions of the claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,551,580 (“Regnier”).
Regarding claim 1, Regnier discloses:
An electrical connector system (title, abstract) comprising:
a cage (FIG 21:220) including:
a lower slot (bottom port 225b) that includes a first end (end of slot closest to front face 221) and a second end opposed to the first end of the lower slot (end of slot closest to rear face 222);
a lower electrical connector (mating interface 272b) located at the second end of the lower slot (see FIG 22);
an upper slot (225a) that includes a first end and a second end opposed to the first end of the upper slot (ends arranged in the same manner as the lower slot ends discussed above); and
an upper electrical connector (272a) located at the second end of the upper slot (in the same manner as the connector of the lower slot);
a lower heat sink (FIG 23:264,266) that is located between the lower and the upper slots (as shown by FIG 23) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (fins 266 are in cooling channel 230, thus one of ordinary skill would understand and appreciate that the purpose of the fins is to provide convective heat transfer to air flowing through channel 230, including through fins 266);
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located adjacent the upper slot on a side of the upper slot opposed to the lower heat sink (as shown in FIG 23); and
an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100, wherein the upper electrical connector is provided at the second end of the upper slot), wherein
the upper cable provides an electrical connection (“an electrical connection” and “an electrical path” are identical in scope), an electrical path (col. 6, ll. 10-26; disclosure of the plug module 100 as configured to “boost electrical signals” inheres an embodiment wherein cables provide an electrical connection/path rather than an optical connection), or a non-electrical path (optical cables provide a path for conveyance of data).
Regarding claim 2, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the lower and upper electrical connectors are vertically stacked (see, e.g., FIG 21) in a direction that is orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to a transceiver-mating direction (as may be seen in FIGS 21-24).
Regarding claim 4, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 5, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the lower connector being a PCB-mounted connector (see FIG 1, showing how the cage of the disclosed connector system is affixed to a PCB, thereby making the lower connector “a PCB-mounted connector” in the sense that it is affixed to a PCB).
Regarding claim 6, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 7, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the upper and lower electrical connectors being receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver (col. 3, ll. 59-63 disclose mating interfaces 72a and 72b being “a single card slot” and FIGS 8 and 9 show how a mating transceiver inserts into the slots, thus the mating interfaces 72a and 72b may be reasonably construed as “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim; since the mating connectors 272a and 272b are depicted as the same type of connector, they may be reasonably interpreted as also being “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim).
Regarding claim 8, Regnier discloses:
A heat dissipation module (the Summary section discloses a cooling function, thus FIGS 21-24 may be reasonably interpreted as depicting a heat dissipation module) comprising:
an upper slot (225a) configured to receive an upper transceiver (FIG 8) and including a first end and a second end opposed to the first end of the upper slot (ends arranged in the same manner as the lower slot ends discussed below);
a lower slot (225b) configured to receive a lower transceiver (FIG 9) and including a first end (end of slot closest to front face 221) and a second end opposed to the first end of the lower slot (end of slot closest to rear face 222);
a lower heat sink (FIG 23:264, 266) that is located between the upper and the lower slots (as shown) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (Summary); and
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located above the upper slot (as shown);
an upper electrical connector (272a) located at a second end of the upper slot (as shown in FIGS 22-24); and
an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector at the second end of the upper slot (see FIG 8), wherein
the upper cable provides an electrical connection (“an electrical connection” and “an electrical path” are identical in scope), an electrical path (col. 6, ll. 10-26; disclosure of the plug module 100 as configured to “boost electrical signals” inheres an embodiment wherein cables provide an electrical connection/path rather than an optical connection), or a non-electrical path (optical cables provide a path for conveyance of data).
Regarding claim 9, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses an upper and a lower electrical connector (272b) located at a second end of the lower slot (as shown in FIGS 22-24).
Regarding claim 10, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and further discloses the heat sink extending between the upper and lower electrical connectors (fins 266 extend vertically between upper and lower slots 225a and 225b as shown by FIGS 22 and 23).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses both the upper and lower heat sinks being fluid cooled (air is a fluid; Summary sections discloses airflow through cooling channel 230 and those of ordinary skill would recognize that cooling fins 296 are in contact with air, despite the lack of explicit statement by Regnier).
Regarding claim 14, Regnier discloses:
A stacked receptacle connector assembly (title, abstract, FIGS 1, 21-24) comprising:
a cage (220) that is configured to be mounted to a substrate (as shown by FIG 1), that includes walls (as shown) defining an upper slot (225a) configured to receive an upper transceiver (as shown by FIG 8) and defining a lower slot (225b) configured to receive a lower transceiver (as shown by FIG 9), and that extends between a first end (front face 221) and a second end rearward of the first end (rear face 222);
a lower receptacle connector (272b) at a second end of the lower slot (see FIGS 22-23); and
an upper receptacle connector (272a) stacked in the cage above the lower receptacle connector (as shown by FIGS 21-24);
a lower heat sink (264, 266) that is located between the upper and the lower slots (see FIG 23) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (see Summary section discussing cooling channel 230, which contains heat sink 264, 266); and
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located above the upper slot (as shown in FIGS 21-24); and
an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper receptacle connector (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper receptacle connector at a second end of the upper slot (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100, wherein the upper electrical connector is provided at the second end of the upper slot), wherein
the upper cable provides an electrical connection (“an electrical connection” and “an electrical path” are identical in scope), an electrical path (col. 6, ll. 10-26; disclosure of the plug module 100 as configured to “boost electrical signals” inheres an embodiment wherein cables provide an electrical connection/path rather than an optical connection), or a non-electrical path (optical cables provide a path for conveyance of data).
Regarding claim 16, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower receptacle connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 17, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses the lower receptacle connector being a PCB-mounted connector (see FIG 1, showing how the cage of the disclosed connector system is affixed to a PCB, thereby making the lower connector “a PCB-mounted connector” in the sense that it is affixed to a PCB).
Regarding claim 18, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower receptacle connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 19, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses the upper and lower electrical connectors being receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver (col. 3, ll. 59-63 disclose mating interfaces 72a and 72b being “a single card slot” and FIGS 8 and 9 show how a mating transceiver inserts into the slots, thus the mating interfaces 72a and 72b may be reasonably construed as “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim; since the mating connectors 272a and 272b are depicted as the same type of connector, they may be reasonably interpreted as also being “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim).
Regarding claim 20, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses the upper and lower receptacle connectors being identical (as shown by FIGS 21-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
