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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LONG (Publication No.: CN 211062062 U) in view of Ravichandran (Publication No.: US 2024/0337799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LONG teaches An optical transceiver, comprising: a printed circuit board (reference numeral 210 in Figure 7) provided with a plurality of signal lines (reference numeral 212, 213, 214, 223 in Figure 7 and/or “trace” “line” “wiring line” “gold wire” throughout specification) and a plurality of gold fingers (e.g. “gold finger 2122” reference numeral 2122 in Figure 7 and/or “first gold fingers” “second gold fingers” as in claim 9 ) each connecting one of the plurality of signal lines; a transceiver module (reference numeral 220, 222, 240 in Figure 7 and/or “OLED” throughout specification and/or “internal light source” as in paragraph [0061]) disposed on the printed circuit board and connecting the plurality of signal lines, wherein the transceiver module comprises an optical transmitter (e.g. “OLED” and/or “internal light source” as in paragraphs [0058]-[0061]) and an optical receiver (reference numeral 220, 222, 240 in Figure 7 and/or “photodetector” as in paragraph [0048]); a plurality of filtering capacitors (reference numeral 230 in Figure 7 and/or reference numeral 231, 232 in Figure 8 ) each located on one of the plurality of signal lines; and a noise absorber (reference numeral 280 in Figure 7) covering at least one surface of the plurality of filtering capacitors opposite to the printed circuit board. Long differs from the claim invention in that it fails to specifically teach that the material of the noise absorber comprises at least nickel. However, Ravichandran teaches that this concept is well known in the art (e.g. “nickel iron alloy (e.g., Alloy 42) or other Ni alloys” as in paragraph [0077]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize nickel as the material of the noise absorber in order to form a single lid capable of excellent heat conduction and protection from compression-related damage, and thereby, associated noise (as in paragraph [0077] of Ravichandran). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize nickel as the material of the noise absorber as taught by Ravichandran in LONG.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of references and LONG in particular teaches The optical transceiver according to claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of filtering capacitors is in 01005 inch size (e.g. “the size of the first filter capacitor may be 0.4 * 0.2 * 0.2 mm” as in specification).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of references and LONG in particular teaches The optical transceiver according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of filtering capacitors is in 01005 inch size (e.g. “the size of the first filter capacitor may be 0.4 * 0.2 * 0.2 mm” as in specification).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of references and Ravichandran in particular teaches The optical transceiver according to claim 1, wherein the material of the noise absorber further comprises silicone and iron (e.g. “silicone” “iron” as in paragraph [0077]) .
Regarding claim 5, the combination of references teaches The optical transceiver according to claim 4, but fails to specifically teach that a percent by weight of the nickel is 37% to 42%, a percent by weight of the silicone is 15% to 25%, and a percent by weight of the iron is 38% to 43%. However, selection of the percent by weight of nickel, silicon, and iron for the noise absorber would have been a matter of design choice for one skilled in the art. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize the percent by weight of each element claimed in order to meet design, budget, or performance requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a noise absorber comprised of a percent by weight of the nickel that is 37% to 42%, a percent by weight of the silicone that is 15% to 25%, and a percent by weight of the iron that is 38% to 43%.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of references and LONG in particular teaches The optical transceiver according to claim 1, wherein a projection of an entirety of the plurality of filtering capacitors on the printed circuit board is within a projection of the noise absorber on the printed circuit board (e.g. “280” as illustrated in Figure 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/29/25 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combined teachings of LONG and Ravichandran.
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 AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/AGUSTIN BELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635