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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date(s) of U.S. Patents 10,114,182, 10,534,145, 11,372,178, 11,500,167, and 11,650,383 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the IDS
In the response received on 03/26/2026 (“the Remarks”), Applicant mistakenly asserts that copies of the U.S. applications cited in the IDS documents received on 10/20/2023 and 01/04/2024 are not required. Applicant cites to MPEP §609.04(a)(II)(C) in support of this mistaken assertion. Examiner notes that Applicant conveniently omits the preceding portion of (a)(II)(C) which makes clear that the exception is provided only for “each cited pending unpublished U.S. application” (emphasis by Examiner). Thus, in order for (a)(II)(C) to apply, the cited patent applications must be both pending (i.e., the application cannot have matured into a patent) and unpublished (i.e., the applicant cannot have been published as a Patent Application Publication).
At the time the instant application was filed (10/20/2023), none of the applications cited by Applicant were still pending and unpublished as required by the exception mistakenly relied upon by Applicant. As such, Applicant’s contention that copies of each application were not required is wholly incorrect. Moreover, Applicant has flagrantly ignored the portion of the MPEP cited by Examiner in footnote 1 on page 2 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/31/2025; there, Examiner specifically points out that published applications (which, at the time of filing, every cited application in question was already published and/or patented) should be listed by their publication numbers on IDS forms rather than their application numbers.
Applicant continues, alleging that “Examiner has clearly considered each of the U.S. patent applications listed in the disclosure statements….” Here, Applicant makes unsubstantiated assumptions that are, in fact, incorrect. Thus, for clarity of the record, Examiner must make it unambiguously clear that Applicant’s assertion that “Examiner has clearly considered each of the U.S. patent applications listed” is incorrect. Examiner has considered only that information included in the respective publications cited in the PTO-892 which accompanied the Non-Final Rejection. Examiner has not considered any information in the file wrappers of the respective applications that is not found in the respective publications.
Regarding the Prior Art Rejections
Applicant has amended each of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 to incorporate the subject matter of claims 3, 11, and 15, respectively. Applicant argues that Regnier, as shown in FIG 17, depicts “’cables’ (optical fibers) that are only connected to the plug connector 100” and therefore Regnier “does not teach or suggest any cables that are connected to a connector of the receptacle 10” shown by Regnier.
Notably, however, Applicant does not present any argument refuting Examiner’s finding that plug connector 100 is connected to the upper electrical connector (272a) of Regnier. Further, Applicant concedes that optical fibers are inserted into the plug connector (Remarks at p. 10). Applicant seemingly takes issue with conflation of “optical fibers” as “a cable,” but there would be no merit in arguing that “optical fibers” are not “a cable.” Broadly interpreted, a “cable” may be defined as “an insulated wire or wires having a protective casing and used for transmitting electricity or telecommunication signals.” Regnier is drawn toward equipment in “server and communications racks” and thus may be understood to disclose optical fibers utilized in transmission of “telecommunication signals.” Thus, the optical fibers of Regnier are indisputably “a cable” within context of the instantly claimed subject matter.
Since, as admitted by Applicant, the cables of Regnier are inserted into plug module 100 and, as Applicant has not disputed the plug module 100 being “connected to the upper electrical connector,” Examiner finds that Regnier unambiguously discloses “an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector.” Since the optical fibers are admittedly connected to the plug module, and the plug module is connected to the upper electrical connector, the optical fibers (i.e., “the cable”) are at least indirectly connected to the upper electrical connector. The claim language as originally filed or as amended does not exclude indirect connection and, thus, Applicant’s contention that Regnier fails to disclose the amended subject matter is transparently incorrect.
In view of the foregoing, Examiner finds that the applied prior art remains applicable to the claims as amended. The pending rejections under §102 are maintained, modified as necessary in view of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s anticipatory arguments pertaining to a possible rejection of the claims under §103 as obvious in view of Regnier are presently irrelevant and have not been considered at this time.
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); and
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 (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled optical fiber cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
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);
a lower slot (225b) configured to receive a lower transceiver (FIG 9);
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 first 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 (see FIG 8).
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 first 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 the 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).
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights