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 § 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 9 and 18 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.
Claim 9 requires “the second connector is coupled to the second connector.” It is unclear what the applicant mean by this limitation. For the purpose of a compact prosecution, this limitation will be considered to mean “the second connector is coupled to the third connector.”
Claim 18 requires “the second connector is coupled to the second connector.” It is unclear what the applicant mean by this limitation. For the purpose of a compact prosecution, this limitation will be considered to mean “the second connector is coupled to the third connector.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano et al. (US10585247B2).
Regarding claim 1, Takano et al. discloses An apparatus (Fig. 49A.2), comprising:
a first connector (Fig. 49A.2; an MPO connector 4902) configured to interface with a 200 gigabit (200G) optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 34-35; a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902);
a second connector coupled to the first connector (Fig. 49A.2; a second connector on the other end is shown. The second connector is connected to the MPO connector 4902 through a fiber cable as shown) via a first set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Fig. 52B; Column 32, lines 61-63; a multiple-fiber push-on/pull-off (MPO) connector implies there is a plurality of fibers; A MPO connector is shown on Fig. 52B, wherein the fibers are located at the front of the MT ferrule 5202 (e.g., at 5202a and 5202b)); and
a splitter portion (Fig. 49A.2; a cassette 4906) comprising:
a third connector communicatively coupled to the second connector (Fig. 49A. 2; a cassette 4906 implies that a female connector is located on the cassette 4906 and mates with the MPO connector inserted into it);
a fourth connector (Fig. 49A.2; a LC uniboot 4904 is shown) coupled to the third connector (Fig. 49A.2; a LC uniboot 4904 is connected to a cassette 4906) via a second set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 37-39; Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904 (An LC uniboot fiber patch cable is a specialized duplex fiber optic connector that combines two fibers into a single, round cable jacket, using one boot)), the fourth connector configured to interface with a first 100 gigabit (100G) optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 31-40; The use of a CS connector allows for a compact fiber implementation, as well as improved flexibility. For example, in some existing systems, as shown in FIGS. 49A.1-49A.2, a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902. The MPO connector may then be split out using an additional tool, such as a fan out 4903 or a cassette 4906. Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904. The 100G module device 4904 may then be inserted into a 100G transceiver 4905); and
a fifth connector (Fig. 49A.2; a second LC uniboot 4904 is shown) coupled to the third connector (Fig. 49A.2; a LC uniboot 4904 is connected to a cassette 4906) via a third set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 37-39; Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904 (An LC uniboot fiber patch cable is a specialized duplex fiber optic connector that combines two fibers into a single, round cable jacket, using one boot)), the fifth connector configured to interface with a second 100G optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 31-40; The use of a CS connector allows for a compact fiber implementation, as well as improved flexibility. For example, in some existing systems, as shown in FIGS. 49A.1-49A.2, a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902. The MPO connector may then be split out using an additional tool, such as a fan out 4903 or a cassette 4906. Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904. The 100G module device 4904 may then be inserted into a 100G transceiver 4905).
Regarding claim 9, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the second connector is coupled to the third connector via a coupler component (Fig. 49A. 2; the MPO connector is inserted in the female connector via a cassette 4906).
Regarding claim 19, the present system teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claim in light of the rejection of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US10585247B2) in view of Perrin (Precision Optical Transceiver, 2022).
Regarding claim 2, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present system does not expressly disclose optical transceiver comprise non-return-to-zero (NRZ) transceivers.
Perrin discloses optical transceiver comprise non-return-to-zero (NRZ) transceivers (Fig. 3F.2; 4x25G Optical NRZ signal is shown. As shown in the figure, there are four different wavelengths requiring four different optical transceiver). (Perrin teaches that the simplest form of modulation is Intensity Modulation with Direct Detection (IM-DD) and the most common version of IM-DD is Non-Return to Zero(NRZ). It essentially means “bright for a 1, dim for a 0”. Historically, fiber optic systems were all purely NRZ based. NRZ is your typical binary code and most if not all 10G and below optical
technology is based on NRZ (Page 15, section, Pulse Amplitude Modulation 4 (PAM4), first paragraph). Perrin further teaches that the TOSAs (Transmitter Optical Sub Assembly) and ROSAs (Receiver Optical Sub Assembly) that can process PAM4 are much more complex than the typical NRZ / Manchester Phase Encoding (MPE) / 8B/10B encoding OSAs. And while PAM4 does double the number of bits in serial data transmissions by increasing the number of levels of pulse-amplitude modulation, it also creates a penalty on signal to noise ratio (SNR). (Page 16, second paragraph)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the NRZ transceivers, as taught by Perrin, in the present system because NRZ is the simplest and most common intensity modulation scheme. It also allows to transmit optical signal further because it has higher SNR tolerance.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US10585247B2) in view of FiberStamp (2003).
Regarding claim 3, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose the 200G optical transceiver comprises a short-range 8 (SR8) transceiver.
FiberStamp discloses the 200G optical transceiver comprises a short-range 8 (SR8) transceiver (Fig. 1; Page 1, Section, Description, first paragraph; The FIBERSTAMP Technologies FEL-200S8M10C is a Eight-Channel, Pluggable, Parallel, Fiber-Optic QSFP Double Density for 2x100 Gigabit Ethernet Applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of FiberStamp with the present system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 200G transceiver that receives optical signal through a MPO connector, it does not provide the detail on the transceiver that performs this. FiberStamp provides the missing detail.
Regarding claim 7, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present system does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connectors.
FiberStamp discloses connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connector (Fig. 1; Page 1, Features; Page 1, Section, Description, first paragraph; The FIBERSTAMP Technologies FEL-200S8M10C is a Eight-Channel, Pluggable, Parallel, Fiber-Optic QSFP Double Density for 2x100 Gigabit Ethernet Applications. The optical interface uses an 24 fiber MTP (MPO) connector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of FiberStamp with the present system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 200G transceiver that receives optical signal through a MPO connector, it does not provide the detail on the transceiver that performs this. FiberStamp provides the missing detail.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US10585247B2) in view of Jabil (2020).
Regarding claim 4, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present system does not expressly disclose 100G optical transceiver comprise short-range 4 (SR4) transceivers.
Jabil discloses 100G optical transceiver comprise short-range 4 (SR4) transceivers (Page 1, first paragraph; The 100G QSFP28 SR4 transceiver is a four-channel, pluggable, parallel, fiber-optic QSFP28 SR4 for 100-Gigabit Ethernet. This transceiver is a high-performance module for short-range multi-lane data communication and interconnect applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jabil to the present system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 100G transceiver, it fails to teach the detail on the transceiver that performs this. Jabil provides the missing detail.
Regarding claim 8, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present system does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors.
Jabil discloses connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors (Page 1, Description; the optical interface uses 12-fiber MTP/MPO connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 12-fiber MPO connector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a single MPO connector can bundle 12 fibers into one interface, whereas an LC uniboot holds only two fibers.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US10585247B2).
Regarding claim 5, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
Regarding the limitation, the first connector, the second connector, the fourth connector, and the fifth connector comprises female connectors, the claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no evidence that the system will operate any differently using female connectors instead of male connectors nor there is any evidence that female connectors rather than male connectors have any advantages or unexpected result over the prior art. That is, there is no evidence that the choice of female connector instead of male connector has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. Thus, the limitation do not define a patentably distinct invention over the prior arts. The applicant has not disclosed that the choice of female connector solve any stated problem, provides any advantage, nor any unexpected result. Therefore, the choice of female connector instead of male connector would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, the present system discloses The apparatus of claim 1, as described and applied above.
Regarding the limitation, the third connector comprises a male connector, the claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no evidence that the system will operate any differently using a male connector instead of a female connector nor there is any evidence that female connector rather than male connector have any advantages or unexpected result over the prior art. That is, there is no evidence that the choice of male connector instead of female connector has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. Thus, the limitation do not define a patentably distinct invention over the prior arts. The applicant has not disclosed that the choice of male connector solve any stated problem, provides any advantage, nor any unexpected result. Therefore, the choice of male connector instead of female connector would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10, 14-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US20040208563A1) in view of Takano et al. (US10585247B2).
Regarding claim 10, Roberts et al. discloses A system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first network port (Fig. 1; the head end 102 has a communication endpoint as shown);
a first storage node (Fig. 1; the remote module 104-1 with non-volatile memory (NVM) 117) comprising a second network port (Fig. 1; the remote module 104-1 has a second communication endpoint as shown);
a third storage node (Fig. 1; the remote module 104-N with non-volatile memory (NVM) 117) comprising a third network port (Fig. 1; the remote module 104-N has a third communication endpoint as shown); and
an optical splitter component (Fig. 1; the optical splitter 106) coupling the first network port to the second network port and the third network port (Fig. 1; the optical splitter 106 is connected to the head end, remote module 104-1, and remote module 104-N).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose the optical splitter component comprising: a first connector configured to interface with the first network port, wherein the first network port comprises a 200 gigabit (200G) optical transceiver; a second connector coupled to the first connector via a first set of optical fibers; and a splitter portion comprising: a third connector communicatively coupled to the second connector; a fourth connector coupled to the third connector via a second set of optical fibers, the fourth connector configured to interface with the second network port, wherein the second network port comprises a first 100 gigabit (100G) optical transceiver; and a fifth connector coupled to the third connector via a third set of optical fibers, the fifth connector configured to interface with the third network port, wherein the third network port comprises a second 100G optical transceiver.
Takano et al. discloses the optical splitter component (Fig. 49A.2) comprising: a first connector (Fig. 49A.2; an MPO connector 4902) configured to interface with the first network port, wherein the first network port comprises a 200 gigabit (200G) optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 34-35; a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902); a second connector coupled to the first connector (Fig. 49A.2; a second connector on the other end is shown. The second connector is connected to the MPO connector 4902 through a fiber cable as shown) via a first set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Fig. 52B; Column 32, lines 61-63; a multiple-fiber push-on/pull-off (MPO) connector implies there is a plurality of fibers; A MPO connector is shown on Fig. 52B, wherein the fibers are located at the front of the MT ferrule 5202 (e.g., at 5202a and 5202b)); and a splitter portion (Fig. 49A.2; a cassette 4906) comprising: a third connector communicatively coupled to the second connector (Fig. 49A. 2; a cassette 4906 implies that a female connector is located on the cassette 4906 and mates with the MPO connector inserted into it); a fourth connector (Fig. 49A.2; a LC uniboot 4904 is shown) coupled to the third connector (Fig. 49A.2; a LC uniboot 4904 is connected to a cassette 4906) via a second set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 37-39; Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904 (An LC uniboot fiber patch cable is a specialized duplex fiber optic connector that combines two fibers into a single, round cable jacket, using one boot)), the fourth connector configured to interface with the second network port, wherein the second network port comprises a first 100 gigabit (100G) optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 31-40; The use of a CS connector allows for a compact fiber implementation, as well as improved flexibility. For example, in some existing systems, as shown in FIGS. 49A.1-49A.2, a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902. The MPO connector may then be split out using an additional tool, such as a fan out 4903 or a cassette 4906. Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904. The 100G module device 4904 may then be inserted into a 100G transceiver 4905); and a fifth connector (Fig. 49A.2; a second LC uniboot 4904 is shown) coupled to the third connector via a third set of optical fibers (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 37-39; Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904 (An LC uniboot fiber patch cable is a specialized duplex fiber optic connector that combines two fibers into a single, round cable jacket, using one boot)), the fifth connector configured to interface with the third network port, wherein the third network port comprises a second 100G optical transceiver (Fig. 49A.2; Column 31, lines 31-40; The use of a CS connector allows for a compact fiber implementation, as well as improved flexibility. For example, in some existing systems, as shown in FIGS. 49A.1-49A.2, a 200G transceiver module 4901 may receive an MPO connector 4902. The MPO connector may then be split out using an additional tool, such as a fan out 4903 or a cassette 4906. Once the cable is split out, it can be connected to a 100G module device (e.g., a LC uniboot as shown) 4904. The 100G module device 4904 may then be inserted into a 100G transceiver 4905).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Takano et al. to the present system in order increase the data transmission capability by providing more optical channels through use of multi-fiber system of Takano et al.
Regarding claim 14, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
Regarding the limitation, the first connector, the second connector, the fourth connector, and the fifth connector comprises female connectors, the claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no evidence that the system will operate any differently using female connectors instead of male connectors nor there is any evidence that female connectors rather than male connectors have any advantages or unexpected result over the prior art. That is, there is no evidence that the choice of female connector instead of male connector has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. Thus, the limitation do not define a patentably distinct invention over the prior arts. The applicant has not disclosed that the choice of female connector solve any stated problem, provides any advantage, nor any unexpected result. Therefore, the choice of female connector instead of male connector would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
Regarding the limitation, the third connector comprises a male connector, the claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no evidence that the system will operate any differently using a male connector instead of a female connector nor there is any evidence that female connector rather than male connector have any advantages or unexpected result over the prior art. That is, there is no evidence that the choice of male connector instead of female connector has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. Thus, the limitation do not define a patentably distinct invention over the prior arts. The applicant has not disclosed that the choice of male connector solve any stated problem, provides any advantage, nor any unexpected result. Therefore, the choice of male connector instead of female connector would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above, wherein the second connector is coupled to the third connector via a coupler component (Fig. 49A. 2; the MPO connector is inserted in the female connector via a cassette 4906).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US20040208563A1) in view of Takano et al. (US10585247B2) and Perrin (Precision Optical Transceiver, 2022).
Regarding claim 11, the present combination discloses The system of claim 11, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose optical transceiver comprise non-return-to-zero (NRZ) transceivers.
Perrin discloses optical transceiver comprise non-return-to-zero (NRZ) transceivers (Fig. 3F.2; 4x25G Optical NRZ signal is shown. As shown in the figure, there are four different wavelengths requiring four different optical transceiver). (Perrin teaches that the simplest form of modulation is Intensity Modulation with Direct Detection (IM-DD) and the most common version of IM-DD is Non-Return to Zero(NRZ). It essentially means “bright for a 1, dim for a 0”. Historically, fiber optic systems were all purely NRZ based. NRZ is your typical binary code and most if not all 10G and below optical
technology is based on NRZ (Page 15, section, Pulse Amplitude Modulation 4 (PAM4), first paragraph). Perrin further teaches that the TOSAs (Transmitter Optical Sub Assembly) and ROSAs (Receiver Optical Sub Assembly) that can process PAM4 are much more complex than the typical NRZ / Manchester Phase Encoding (MPE) / 8B/10B encoding OSAs. And while PAM4 does double the number of bits in serial data transmissions by increasing the number of levels of pulse-amplitude modulation, it also creates a penalty on signal to noise ratio (SNR). (Page 16, second paragraph)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the NRZ transceivers, as taught by Perrin, in the present combination because NRZ is the simplest and most common intensity modulation scheme. It also allows to transmit optical signal further because it has higher SNR tolerance.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US20040208563A1) in view of Takano et al. (US10585247B2) and FiberStamp (2003).
Regarding claim 12, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose the 200G optical transceiver comprises a short-range 8 (SR8) transceiver.
FiberStamp discloses the 200G optical transceiver comprises a short-range 8 (SR8) transceiver (Fig. 1; Page 1, Section, Description, first paragraph; The FIBERSTAMP Technologies FEL-200S8M10C is a Eight-Channel, Pluggable, Parallel, Fiber-Optic QSFP Double Density for 2x100 Gigabit Ethernet Applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of FiberStamp with the present combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 200G transceiver that receives optical signal through a MPO connector, it does not provide the detail on the transceiver that performs this. FiberStamp provides the missing detail.
Regarding claim 16, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connectors.
FiberStamp discloses connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connectors (Fig. 1; Page 1, Features; Page 1, Section, Description, first paragraph; The FIBERSTAMP Technologies FEL-200S8M10C is a Eight-Channel, Pluggable, Parallel, Fiber-Optic QSFP Double Density for 2x100 Gigabit Ethernet Applications. The optical interface uses an 24 fiber MTP (MPO) connector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of FiberStamp with the present combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 200G transceiver that receives optical signal through a MPO connector, it does not provide the detail on the transceiver that performs this. FiberStamp provides the missing detail.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US20040208563A1) in view of Takano et al. (US10585247B2) and Jabil (2020).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose 100G optical transceiver comprise short-range 4 (SR4) transceivers.
Jabil discloses 100G optical transceiver comprise short-range 4 (SR4) transceivers (Page 1, first paragraph; The 100G QSFP28 SR4 transceiver is a four-channel, pluggable, parallel, fiber-optic QSFP28 SR4 for 100-Gigabit Ethernet. This transceiver is a high-performance module for short-range multi-lane data communication and interconnect applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jabil to the present combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 100G transceiver, it fails to teach the detail on the transceiver that performs this. Jabil provides the missing detail.
Regarding claim 17, the present combination discloses The system of claim 10, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors.
Jabil discloses connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors (Page 1, Description; the optical interface uses 12-fiber MTP/MPO connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 12-fiber MPO connector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a single MPO connector can bundle 12 fibers into one interface, whereas an LC uniboot holds only two fibers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US10585247B2) in view of FiberStamp (2003) and Jabil (2020).
Regarding claim 20, the present system discloses The method of claim 19, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connectors.
FiberStamp discloses connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 24 (MPO24) connectors (Fig. 1; Page 1, Features; Page 1, Section, Description, first paragraph; The FIBERSTAMP Technologies FEL-200S8M10C is a Eight-Channel, Pluggable, Parallel, Fiber-Optic QSFP Double Density for 2x100 Gigabit Ethernet Applications. The optical interface uses an 24 fiber MTP (MPO) connector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of FiberStamp with the present combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Takano et al. teaches a 200G transceiver that receives optical signal through a MPO connector, it does not provide the detail on the transceiver that performs this. FiberStamp provides the missing detail.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose connectors comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors.
Jabil discloses connector comprise multi-fiber push-on 12 (MPO12) connectors (Page 1, Description; the optical interface uses 12-fiber MTP/MPO connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 12-fiber MPO connector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a single MPO connector can bundle 12 fibers into one interface, whereas an LC uniboot holds only two fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAI M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:5:30 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
JAI M. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2634
/JAI M LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2634