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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claim invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of species restriction in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden search for embodiments 1 - 3. This is found persuasive. All claims 1-12 are examined.
Drawings
The drawing 8 is objected to because the bold faces of this figure is too dark. The bold face of this figures would change as a normal drawings 9-16 without the bold part surfaces. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 05/09/2026 has been considered and made of record.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 05/09/2024 is acceptable.
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, 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grindley et al. [US 2011/0262132].
Regarding claim 1, Grindley et al., disclose a chassis (figures 1-10) comprising:
a housing (130, figure 1) configured to connect on top of a rack ( this housing may stack on a top of a rack, paragraph 0057);
a plurality of modules (ONU module is inserted into the chassis 130, figure 1) that are selectively insertable in the housing, each of the plurality of modules supporting one or more Optical Network Units (ONUs) or Optical Network Terminals (ONTs) for operation in a Passive Optical Network (PON) (100, figure 1); and
a fiber splitter (140, figure 1) configured to optically connect to each of the plurality of modules and to a PON distribution network that connects to one or more Optical Line Terminals (OLTs).
Regarding claim 2, Grindley et al., disclose wherein the housing includes a plurality of slots (a plurality of slots are accepted their corresponding modules OUNs disposed within the chassis 130, figure 1) with each slot supporting one of a console module or one of the plurality of modules.
Regarding claim 4, Grindley et al., further disclose wherein each of the plurality of modules includes one or more Ethernet ports (each module 220 includes one or more Ethernet ports, figure 2; paragraph 00310), each configured to connect to a device in the rack; and an optical port configured to connect to the fiber splitter (figure 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Grindley et al., further disclose wherein the one or more Ethernet ports include a plurality of Ethernet ports on a corresponding module for supporting a plurality of ONUs or OLTs on the corresponding module (figure 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 9, Grindley et al., disclose wherein the fiber splitter includes N:M optical ports, with N optical ports communicatively connected to the one or more OLTs and M optical ports communicatively connected to corresponding optical ports on the plurality of modules (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Grindley et al., disclose wherein the N optical ports are connected to a second fiber splitter (160, figure 1, paragraph 0006) associated with one or more rows of racks with the second fiber splitter communicatively connected to the one or more OLTs.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grindley et al., in view of Pfeiffer et al. [US 6,370,294].
Regarding claim 3, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the console module includes one or more RS-232 ports for supporting a plurality of console ports.
Pfeiffer et al., disclose a chassis apparatus (70, figures 5-9) comprising a plurality of modules (10, 200 and 202, figures 5-6) are insertable in the chassis, wherein at least one module is a console module (202, figures 5-6) and wherein the console module includes one or more RS-232 ports (figures 4-6, col. 6, line 20) for supporting a plurality of console ports.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a console module within a chassis of Grindley et al., as suggested by Pfeiffer et al., in order to provide Ethernet, Serial or connections to integrate the local chassis into a broader supervisory control network.
Regarding claim 6, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the housing includes a power backplane configured to connect to a power supply and to provide power to the plurality of modules.
Pfeiffer et al., further disclose wherein the housing includes a power backplane (204, figure 6, column 7, lines 28-31), configured to connect to a power supply and to provide power to the plurality of modules.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a power backplane to provide power to a plurality of modules within a chassis of Grindley et al., as suggested by Pfeiffer et al., in order to provide a centralized power distribution unit to all insertable modules within an electronic device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grindley et al., in view of Muhlfeld et al. [US 6,697,258].
Regarding claim 7, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the housing includes a flange configured to attach to the top of the rack.
Muhlfeld et al., further disclose an electronic enclosure (10, figures 1-5) comprising a housing (12, figure 1), wherein the housing includes a flange (24/26, figure 1) configured to attach to a top of any surface.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional flanges onto a chassis of Grindley et al., as suggested by Muhlfeld et al., in order to secure a chassis onto a top of the rack, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grindley et al., in view of Choi [WO2023229242].
Regarding claim 8, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the top of the rack is above a plurality of servers mounted inside the rack.
Choi discloses a server rack system (10, figures 1-3) including a plurality of servers (11, figures 1-3) disposed within the rack system, and an optical fiber cable skein structure (200, figures 1-3) coupled to the server rack system.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount a chassis of Grindley et al., on a server rack system, as suggested by Choi, in order to consolidate localized networking.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grindley et al., in view of Nichols [US 8,613,632].
Regarding claim 11, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the housing is air cooled via a plurality of openings enabling airflow, and wherein the chassis includes a fanless design.
Nichols discloses an electrical connector (300, figure 5), comprising a housing (302, figure 5), wherein the housing is air cooled via a plurality of openings (321, figure 5) enabling airflow, and wherein the chassis includes a fanless design.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a plurality of air cooled openings on a housing of Grindley et al., as suggested by Nichols, in order to dissipate heat from an electronic device chassis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grindley et al., in view of Pfeiffer et al. [US 6,370,294] and Choi [WO2023229242].
Regarding claim 12, Grindley et al., disclose the claimed invention except for one or more cable routing guides connected to a front of the housing, wherein the rack includes one or more openings for cabling from devices mounted therein to the plurality of modules.
Pfeiffer et al., further disclose one or more cable routing guides (78 & 79, figure 5) connected to a front of the housing.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add one or more cables routing guide(s) connect to a front of a housing of Grindley et al., as suggested by Pfeiffer et al., in order to provide cable pathways into and out of a chassis.
Nichols further discloses wherein the rack includes one or more openings (213, figures 4-7) for cabling from devices mounted therein to the plurality of modules (figures 1-7).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add one or more openings in a server rack which is coupled to a chassis of Grindley et al., in view of Pfeiffer et al., as suggested by Nichols, in order to provide a cable pathway between a sever and ONT/ONU chassis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hochbaun et al. [US 2006/0275036] disclose method and apparatus for automatically upgrading passive optical networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hung S. Bui whose telephone number is (571)272-2102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Allen L. Parker can be reached on (303) 297-4722. 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.
/HUNG S. BUI/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/HUNG S. BUI/Primary Patent Examiner, 2841/2800
Prosecution Insights