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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
From the description in the present Specification, it appears that the number N is strictly an integer greater than 1, such that the claimed “1/N” is a rational value less than 1. However, it also appears that the claimed number of “point to point interconnections” would necessarily also be an integer greater than 1. As such, it is not entirely clear as to meaning of reducing the point to point interconnections by a value of 1/N, since this reduced number would no longer have an integer value. Since Examiner cannot ascertain a physically meaningful understanding of this claim limitation, Examiner is not affording patentable weight to the limitation, “wherein complex arbitrary network topologies can be implemented with at least 1/N less point to point interconnections, and where N is a number of duplex channels per connector adapters.”
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)(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, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,210,487 (“ZHAO”).
Regarding claim 1, ZHAO teaches an apparatus comprising: a plurality of multi-fiber connector adapters (FIG. 3(b); duplex ports; col. 6, lines 1-21), wherein said adapters connect to network equipment in a data communications network (FIG. 3(b); switches); and an internal mesh with 128 optical fibers (mesh of fibers linking ports and switches; Fig. 3(b); col.1, lines 57 – col. 2, line 3; col. 5, lines 12-24), wherein a light path of connected transmitters and receivers are matched to provide proper optical connections to said transmitting to receiving fibers, wherein the internal mesh is designed to enable at least a two-fiber connection from an arbitrary group of two adjacent parallel ports from one side of the mesh to any group of two adjacent parallel ports at the opposite side of the mesh (FIG. 3(b)).
Regarding claim 2, ZHAO teaches that a plurality of apparatuses can be stacked to provide folded Clos network topology of various radixes (col. 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 3, ZHAO teaches that a plurality of apparatuses can be used to scale optical networks from four to thousands of switches (col. 5, lines 12-24).
Regarding claim 4, ZHAO teaches that a plurality of apparatuses can be stacked to provide folded Clos network topology for switches using an even number of uplinks where each of said uplinks comprises multi-fiber connectors (col. 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 6, ZHAO teaches a structured cable system comprising a stack of modules (FIG. 3(b)), wherein each module has a plurality of optical parallel connector adapter and incorporate an internal mesh (mesh of fibers linking ports and switches; Fig. 3(b);
col.1, lines 57 – col. 2, line 3; col. 5, lines 12-24), wherein the internal mesh is designed to enable at least one duplex connection from any two adjacent parallel ports from one side of the mesh to any group of two adjacent parallel ports at the opposite side of the mesh wherein the stack of modules can be used to deploy or scale various Clos network topologies using fewer numbers of interconnections (FIG. 3(b); col. 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 7, ZHAO teaches that said system can be used to scale optical networks from four to ten thousand switches (col. 5, lines 12-24).
Regarding claim 9, ZHAO teaches that said system can enable fabrics with an arbitrarily even number of uplinks (FIG. 3(b)).
Regarding claim 10, ZHAO teaches a fiber optic module apparatus (FIG. 3(b), which comprises, a main body, a front face, a rear side, a left side, and a right side wherein the front face accommodates a multiplicity of multi-fiber connectors, the rear face accommodates a multiplicity of multi-fiber connectors, identical in number to the front face, an internal structure of the module provides space for optical lanes comprising optical fibers or optical waveguides (FIG. 3(b); duplex ports; col. 6, lines 1-21), wherein the internal structure of the module apparatus contains at least 128 optical fibers or optical waveguides (col. 5, lines 12-24), the said the optical fibers or waveguides connect fibers of the front face multi-port fiber connectors to fibers of the rear face multi-port fiber connectors, and where the connections follow an interconnection map that produces a mesh configuration wherein the internal mesh is designed to enable full connection from at least two fibers from two adjacent ports from one side of the mesh to at least two fibers of two adjacent ports from the opposite side of the mesh (FIG. 3(b)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO in view of US 2019/0036618 (“HASHARONI”).
ZHAO teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. ZHAO does not explicitly teach that a plurality of apparatuses can be used to implement fabrics to connect several hundred thousand servers. HASHARONI teaches a plurality of apparatuses that can be used to implement fabrics to connect several hundred thousand servers (par. [0001]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the apparatus of ZHAO as set forth in HASHARONI. The motivation would have been to improve interconnection efficiency
(par. [0001]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO in view of US 2019/0221995 (“HEATON”).
ZHAO teaches the limitations of the base claim 6. ZHAO does not explicitly teach that said system can provide redundant paths, reducing the risk of network failure due to interconnection errors. HEATON teaches a system that can provide redundant paths, reducing the risk of network failure due to interconnection errors (pars. [0049], [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of ZHAO with the redundant optical paths of HEATON. The motivation would have been to improve reliability (pars. [0049], [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874