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 of Species I, Fig. 9, claims 1-6 and 8-20 in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The Office action on elected claims 1-6 and 8-20 follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/11/2023 are objected.
Figures 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because the use of solid gray shading reduces legibility and does not adequately contrast with the rest of the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Additionally, the drawings will not reproduce well due to the shading and the character of
the lines. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction
characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(1).
(1) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process
which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter
must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and
uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to
permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and
to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses
may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the
invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of
spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded.
Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections.
See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be
thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Furthermore, Figs. 10 and 11 are particularly of poor quality and barely readable and must be amended accordingly.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “riding heatsink”, “cooling plate”, and “host device” recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 and 8-20, 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.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 16, and 19 recite the limitations: “heat fins that are one or more of (1) located on the housing positioned near the optical subassembly, and (2) in contact with the optical subassembly”.
This language is internally inconsistent and creates ambiguity as to the required structure. It is not clear whether the limitations require the heat fins to be (a) positioned on the housing near the optical subassembly, (b) in contact with the optical subassembly, or (c) somehow satisfy both contradictory conditions simultaneously by being both positioned on the housing near the optical subassembly and in contact with the optical subassembly. Because the scopes of the claims are uncertain, the claims are indefinite.
Applicant is required to amend the claims to clearly recite the intended structural relationship between the heat fins , the housing, and the optical subassembly. If Applicant intends to encompass multiple alternatives, they must be set forth in distinct claims rather than conflated in one indefinite claim.
Similar arguments are applicable to the use of the alternative conjunction “or” which produces ambiguity in claims 3 and 4.
Furthermore, claims recite some unclear, open-ended and ambiguous clauses: “the optical subassembly is (disposed ?) within the large volume portion” (claim 4); “the heat fins are (disposed ?) on the housing” (claim 5), etc.
Furthermore, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “circuitry” (claims 1, 16, and 19) and the “the middle portion” (claim 10).
Furthermore, claim 13 recites limitations pertained to standard(s) (first and second “MSA”) which render the claim indefinite, since standards are subject to changes and revisions. A recitation referencing an external document standard (such as “MSA”) in a claim as a limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no way of knowing that such a standard will be consistent in the future and remain unchanged. Unforeseeable circumstances or changes may occur at any time to the MSA policy or resting standards or identifying nomenclature, even if there is no history of such changes until the present. As such, it is unknown whether the scope of the claim(s) would remain consistent and the public may be unable to identify if and when any infringement may or may not occur.
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, the claim defines that “a top of the heat fins is flat relative to one another and in a same plane as one another, wherein, due to the angle, the heat fins have a different length extending downward to the housing near the optical subassembly, such that the different length is based on a location of a given heat fin and the angle”.
This subject-matter lacks clarity, because it is not clear why the heat fins would necessarily have a different length extending downward to the housing near the optical subassembly due to the angle, wherein the angle is defined as an angle of the optical subassembly relative to the housing. From Fig. 4 and 5 it is apparent that the top surface of the housing in fact forms the same relative angle to, e.g. the PCB 40 and the opposite (lower) housing surface, and that is why the different lengths of the fins arise. However, the claim as presently recited does not specify the angle of the upper surface of the housing, or even recite the feature of the housing upper surface at all.
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, the limitation “front-to-back” renders the claim indefinite, since it’s not clear what the “front” and “back” actually are. The claim does not positively set forth said “front” and “back”.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, the limitation “an end” (line 3) is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It’s not clear the “end” of which particular component the claim is referring to.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, an attempt is made in the claim to define the middle portion and heat fins with respect to external entities that are not part of the claimed subject-matter, namely a “riding heatsink” and a “cooling plate” in a “host device”. Since neither of those features is subject to standardization, no clear implicit limitation on the middle portion and the heat fins can be understood. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
All reminding dependent claims have been also rejected along with the independent claims 1, 16, and 19, since they inherit the aforementioned problems of said independent claims.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is hereby requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims.
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, 4-6, 8-10, 13-16, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0317964 to Downs.
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16, and 19, Downs discloses (see annotated Fig. 7 below): a pluggable optical module ((700), Fig. 7) comprising: a housing (the plate (750) (“sheet metal”) and the lower plate thereunder the edge of which is labelled with references sign (702) (“module edge”) constitute a housing together with cages (710a-f) mounted therebetween); a pluggable optical subassembly (any of transceivers (500)) positioned within the housing (transceivers (500) are positioned at least partially within cages (710a-f)) at an angle relative to the housing (par. [0029]; Fig. 7); the optical module (700) is configured to be inserted into a host device (inherently, see latches on (750) on the annotated Fig. 7 below), a circuitry (circuit board (740)) connected to the optical subassembly (connection is inherently present); and heat fins (fins are visible in Fig. 7 in heat sink (730) between the plate labelled on its edge (702) module edge and sheet metal (750)) that are one or more of (1) located on the housing positioned near the optical subassembly, and (2) in contact with the optical subassembly (the fins of Fig. 7 are located on the housing “near” (there is no clear interpretation of “near”) the rightmost transceiver (500)).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Downs additionally discloses that a housing includes a faceplate (750), a nose portion adjacent to the faceplate (see annotated Fig. 7 below), and a middle portion ((710a-f), or alternatively (702)) adjacent to the nose portion; an optical subassembly (500) positioned within the nose portion at an angle relative to the housing (see annotated Fig. 7 below), wherein the optical subassembly (500) is located substantially in the nose portion (see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: the preamble of claim 16 (“a Quad Small Form Factor (QSFP) optical module”) has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. See Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 19, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of “providing” of the device (i.e., providing each element, connecting, etc.), wherein the claim just repeats the structure of the device as recited in relevant apparatus claim(s) (e.g., in claim 1), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Downs means that the general method for providing such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claim are inherently necessitated by the structure of the device of Downs.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as best understood, the claims recite that the housing includes a large volume portion at or near a faceplate, and wherein the optical subassembly is within the large volume portion, wherein the heat fins are on the housing over the large volume portion.
The definition of exactly what constitutes a “large volume portion” and a “faceplate” is arbitrary. The volume between the plate (750) and that shown with edge (702) in the bottom right-hand quadrant of the device shown in Fig. 7 of Downs may be considered a “large volume portion”, and the vertical surface of (750), immediately to the right of the right-most transceiver, may be considered a “faceplate”. As such, Downs discloses the additional features of claims 4 and 5, because the fins visible in Fig. 7 may also be considered to be “on the housing over the large volume portion”.
Regarding claim 8, Downs discloses that the optical subassembly connects to a ferrule that supports an optical fiber, wherein the angle is based on a bend radius of the optical fiber (see par. [0029] which refers to an optical fiber connection to the cages in order to reduce the fiber bend angle. A ferrule is considered implicitly/inherently disclosed).
Regarding claim 10, an attempt is made in the claim to define the middle portion and heat fins with respect to external entities that are not part of the claimed subject-matter, namely a “riding heatsink” and a “cooling plate” in a “host device”. Since neither of those features is subject to standardization, no clear implicit limitation on the middle portion and the heat fins can be understood (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 10 above). The claim is therefore considered as not further limiting the subject-matter of claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the references to first and second Multisource Agreements as defining a plurality of characteristics of the optical module and optical subassembly respectively is not regarded as an actual limitations. No further technical limitation on the term “characteristics” can be discerned from the fact that the characteristics are agreed upon, and specifically in the context of a Multisource Agreement (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 13 above). The optical module and optical subassemblies of Downs inherently possess characteristics. Therefore Downs, as best understood, discloses the subject-matter of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Downs discloses an angle of 45 degrees (para. [0029], i.e. “at least two degrees” as claimed).
Claims 1-6, 9, 14-17, 19, 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,081,470 to Oki et al. (hereafter “Oki”).
Reading claims 1, 9, 14, 16, and 19, as best understood, Oki discloses a pluggable optical module (Figs. 1-3B) comprising: a housing (11, 12); a pluggable optical subassembly (13) positioned within the housing at an angle relative to the housing and configured to be inserted into a host device (the board (11) is a part of the host device); circuitry (23) connected to the pluggable optical subassembly; and heat fins (15) that are one or more of (1) located on the housing positioned near the optical subassembly, and (2) in contact with the optical subassembly.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, as best understood, Oki additionally discloses that a housing includes a faceplate (11a), a nose portion (i.e., the left portion of the housing on Figs. 2A-3B) adjacent to the faceplate, and a middle portion (i.e., the right portion of the housing on Figs. 2A-3B) adjacent to the nose portion; an optical subassembly (13) positioned within the nose portion at an angle relative to the housing (12), wherein the optical subassembly (13) is located substantially in the nose portion (Fugs. 2A-3B).
Examiner’s Note: the preamble of claim 16 (“a Quad Small Form Factor (QSFP) optical module”) has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. See Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 19, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of “providing” of the device (i.e., providing each element, connecting, etc.), wherein the claim just repeats the structure of the device as recited in relevant apparatus claim(s) (e.g., in claim 1), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Oki means that the general method for providing such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claim are inherently necessitated by the structure of the device of Oki.
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 20, as best understood, Oki discloses that a top of the heat fins (15) is flat relative to one another and in a same plane as one another, and wherein, due to the angle, the heat fins have a different length extending downward to the housing (12) near the optical subassembly (13), such that the different length is based on a location of a given heat fin and the angle (Figs. 2A-3B).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Oki discloses that the heat fins (15) located at or near a faceplate (11a) of the housing (11, 12) have less cross-sectional area than the heat fins located at or near a middle portion of the housing, based on the angle relative to the housing (Figs. 2A-3B).
Regarding claims 4-6, as best understood, as best understood, Oki discloses that the housing (11, 12) includes a large volume portion at or near a faceplate (11a), and wherein the optical subassembly (13) is within the large volume portion (Figs. 2A-3B), wherein the heat fins (15) are on the housing over the large volume portion (Figs. 2A-3B), wherein the heat fins (15) are straight fins where airflow is front-to-back relative to a faceplate on the housing (11, 12) (the airflow can inherently flow perpendicular to the fins, as well as between (i.e., along) the fins).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Oki discloses that the angle is at least two degrees (Figs. 2A-3B clearly show that the angle between (14a) and (12b) or between (14a) and (11) is at least two degrees).
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.
Claim 12, as best understood, and alternatively claim 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs taken alone, or alternatively in view of WO 2023/045686 to Lin et al. (hereafter “Lin”, see the English translation of record).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, as best understood, Downs discloses all as explained above, including that the optical module is pluggable, but does not explicitly disclose that the optical module is a Quad Small Form Factor (QSFP) optical module.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the optical module of Downs as the QSFP module, in order to achieve desired physical and electrical characteristics thereof (e.g., space utilization, data handling capacity, etc.) since such a modification would have amounted to a mere change in size/capacity of the optical module, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, Lin teaches conventionality of the QSFP modules (see pars. [0089], [0170], and [0220] of the English translation of record).
The person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have deployed such an optical subassembly in Downs according to the circumstances, and without the exercise of inventive skill. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 17, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs in view of WO 2023/045686 to Lin, or alternatively (for claims 2, 3, 17, and 20) over Downs taken alone.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 17, and 20, as best understood, Downs discloses that a top of the heat fins (at (730)) is flat relative to one another and in a same plane as one another (Fig. 7), wherein the heat fins (at (730)) located at or near a face plate (750), but does not disclose that due to the angle, the heat fins have a different length extending downward to the housing near the optical subassembly, such that the different length is based on a location of a given heat fin and the angle, wherein the heat fins located at or near the face plate of the housing have less cross-sectional area than the heat fins located at or near a middle portion of the housing, based on the angle relative top the housing.
The provision of different cross-sectional area fins at or near a faceplate of the housing and at or near a middle portion is a constructional detail that the skilled person would adopt according to the circumstances, and without the exercise of inventive skill - see, for example, the disclosure of such differing fins in Lin (Figs. 13, 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Downs according to the teachings of Lin, so the heat fins have a different length extending downward to the housing near the optical subassembly, such that the different length is based on a location of a given heat fin and the angle, wherein the heat fins located at or near the face plate of the housing have less cross-sectional area than the heat fins located at or near a middle portion of the housing, based on the angle relative to the housing, in order to predictably optimize cooling of various portions of the optical module/ subassembly. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 20, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, wherein the claim just repeats the structure of the device as recited in relevant apparatus claim(s) (e.g., in claims 2 and 17), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Downs in view of Lin, means that the general method recited in claim 20 is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in the claim are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of the Downs-Lin combination.
Alternatively, regarding claims 2, 3, 17, and 20, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the aforementioned modification in Downs, for the benefits as stated above, since a change in size (i.e., of the heat fins in the instant case) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also, the rational that a particular shape (i.e., of the heat fins in the instant case) is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the straight fins oriented to allow front-to-back cooling with respect to a faceplate is a commonplace approach that fall within the ambit of the skilled person in related arts - see, for example, Lin (Figs. 13 and 15) for examples of this arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented such an approach in Downs. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 11 and 18, as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs in view of US 2021/0112683 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter “Mohajer”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Downs does not disclose that the optical subassembly is a Nano Integrable Tunable Laser Assembly (nITLA).
Regarding claim 18, Downs does not disclose that the one or more of the QSFP module is a QSFP Double Density (QSFP-DD) module, and the optical subassembly is a Nano Integrable Tunable Laser Assembly (nITLA).
Mohajer teaches conventionality of the Nano Integrable Tunable Laser Assembly (nITLA) modules (par. [0102]) and of the QSFP Double Density (QSFP-DD) modules (pars. [0040], [0046]).
The person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have deployed such an optical subassembly in Downs according to the circumstances, and without the exercise of inventive skill. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various pluggable optical modules with cooling means. Furter, the US 2002/0185269 (Figs. 1A-12A) and US 2005/0190540 (Fig. 5B) teach heat sinks with slanted surfaces resulting in cooling fins having variable lengths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ANATOLY VORTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights