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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on December 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See claims 1-11 which include “unit”, “module” used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki (US 2022/0283054).
As to claim 1, Iwasaki discloses an electronic device 10 (see at least figure 3), comprising: a housing (see the housing in figure 3 which contains SFP ports 12, 14, and 16) comprising a plurality of small form-factor pluggable (SFP) ports 12, 14, 16 for receiving a plurality of pluggable modules 20, 30, the plurality of pluggable modules 20, 30 comprising at least one SFP module 20 and at least one pluggable front end module (FEM) (see paragraph [0018] which discloses “SFP (Small Formfactor Pluggable) Transceiver provide cage and connector specifications for SFP devices”, wherein the pluggable SFP transceiver must inherently include a front end module as claimed, in order to transmit and receive signals); a first circuit unit (see one of the circuit units A0-A3, Y0-Y3 in figure 7) provided inside the housing 10; a second circuit unit (see other ones of the circuit units A0-A3, Y0-Y3 in figure 7) provided inside the housing 10; and a multiplex unit M0-M3 (see at least paragraph [0053]) provided inside the housing 10 and configured to enable communications between the pluggable FEM and the first circuit unit, and enable communications between the SFP module and the second circuit unit (see paragraph [0053] which discloses “There are four multiplexer switches M0, M1, M2, and M3. The multiplexer switches functions as a crosspoint switch, demultiplexer, or multiplexer for routing the signals. There are four high speed output differential amplifiers Y0, Y1, Y2, and Y3.”).
As to claim 2, Iwasaki discloses that the multiplex unit M0-M3 (see at least figure 7) is connected between each of the plurality of SFP ports (see ports 1-4) and the first and second circuit units (A0-A3, Y0-Y3), in a case that the pluggable FEM is inserted into a first SFP port of the plurality of SFP ports, the multiplex unit is configured to enable communications between the pluggable FEM and the first circuit unit via the first SFP port; and in a case that the SFP module is inserted into a second SFP port of the plurality of SFP ports, the multiplex unit is configured to enable communications between the SFP module and the second circuit unit via the second SFP port. See paragraphs [0051], and [0053].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2022/0283054) in view of Bolle (WO 2020/177917 A1).
As to claim 3, Iwasaki fails to disclose that the SFP module stores a first identifier for identifying the SFP module, and the pluggable FEM stores a second identifier for identifying the pluggable FEM. Bolle discloses that a SFP module stores a first identifier for identifying the SFP module, wherein the SFP may be a pluggable FEM (see page 4 lines 22-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Bolle to both SFP module, and pluggable FEM module in Iwasaki, such that the SFP module stores a first identifier for identifying the SFP module, and the pluggable FEM stores a second identifier for identifying the pluggable FEM, in order to yield predictable results such as allowing the housing to easily identify the plugged SFP module, and FEM.
Claims 4-5, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2022/0283054).
As to claim 4, Iwasaki inherently discloses that the SFP module comprises a first number of pins, and each of the plurality of SFP ports comprises the first number of pins, so that they can connect and operate as a whole, and that the pluggable FEM comprises a second number of pins.
Iwasaki fails to disclose that the second number is less than or equal to the first number. However, Iwasaki does suggest that the FEM may be a SFP module (see paragraph [0018] which discloses “SFP (Small Formfactor Pluggable) Transceiver provide cage and connector specifications for SFP devices”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iwasaki, such that the second number is equal to the first number, in order to yield predictable results such as lower implementing cost and simplify design complexibility.
Iwasaki fails to disclose that the pluggable FEM is implemented by integrating the second number of pins into a part of the first number of pins of the SFP module. As discussed above, since Iwasaki does suggest that the FEM may be a SFP module, it would be apparent that the pluggable FEM should have its own a second number of pins and a part of the first number of pins of the SFP module. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iwasaki, such that the pluggable FEM is implemented by integrating the second number of pins into a part of the first number of pins of the SFP module, in order to yield predictable results such as lower implementing cost and simplify design complexibility.
As to claim 5, Iwasaki discloses that the second circuit unit is an optical fiber control module 18 (see at least paragraph [0043]), but fails to disclose that the first circuit unit is a radio frequency integrated circuit. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that connecting a FEM to a RFIC module is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iwasaki as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the cost, weight and size of the transceiver.
As to claim 7, Iwasaki fails to disclose that the pluggable module comprises an electro-magnetic interference shielding cage configured to surround a body of the pluggable module. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that such an electro-magnetic interference shielding cage is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iwasaki as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing electro-magnetic interference to/from the pluggable module.
As to claim 11, Iwasaki does disclose a main board (see paragraph [0050] which discloses “SFP Devices in this embodiment can provide different media interfaces such as RJ45, Coax, SC, LC, Duplex LC, MPO-12, SN-Dual, MDC-Dual, and PCB traces”), but fails to expressly disclose that the first circuit unit, the second circuit unit, and the multiplex unit are provided on a main board inside the housing. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that placing a plurality of circuits on a PCB is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iwasaki as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing implementing cost, weight, and size of the electronic device.
Claims 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2022/0283054) in view of Jo (US 2020/0328729).
As to claim 6, Iwasaki discloses that the pluggable FEM is a wireless transceiver (see paragraph [0002] which discloses the “5G wireless network”), but fails to disclose an antenna provided on the pluggable FEM and arranged far away from an SFP port in which the pluggable FEM is inserted. Jo discloses an antenna ANT provided on a FEM and arranged far away from a terminal port T1 in which the FEM is connected (see figures 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Jo to Iwasaki, in order to yield predictable results such as increasing communication coverage areas.
As to claim 8, Iwasaki fails to disclose the at least one pluggable FEM comprises a plurality of pluggable FEMs configured to transmit and receive signal in different frequency bands. Jo discloses a plurality of pluggable FEMs FEM1-FEM5 (see at least figure 1) configured to transmit and receive signal in different frequency bands (see paragraphs [0048], [0056], [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Jo to Iwasaki, in order to yield predictable results such as providing more services to the users.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2022/0283054) in view of Jo (US 2020/0328729) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Park (US 2016/0099800).
As to claim 9, the combination of Iwasaki and Jo discloses that the different frequency bands comprise 2.4G, 5G, and sub-6G (see Jo, paragraphs [0048], [0056]), but fails to show a 6G band. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that such a 6G band is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Iwasaki and Jo as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing more services to the users.
The combination of Iwasaki and Jo fails to disclose two pluggable FEMs for the same frequency band are disposed in two SFP ports arranged far away from each other. Park discloses two FEMs 310, 340 (see figure 3) for the same frequency band (see paragraph [0037]) are disposed in two connections arranged far away from each other (see figure 3 which shows two FEMS 310, 340 are arrange far away from each other). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Park to the combination of Iwasaki and Jo, in order to yield predictable results such as improving reliability and signa dropouts.
As to claim 10, Iwasaki discloses that the two SFP ports 12, 14 (see figure 3) are disposed at two ends of a diameter of the housing 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hemp (US 2023/0305249) discloses pluggable communication modules (see figures 1-2).
Saghari (US 11,967,994) discloses pluggable communication modules 108 (see figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646