DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on July 27, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 have been amended, claims 2, 11, 19, and 20 have been formally canceled, while new claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-18, and 21-24 remain pending and are finally rejected herein, with claims 1 and 18 in independent form.
Note that the amendments to independent claims 1 and 18 corresponds most closely to the embodiment shown by Applicant’s Figs. 11-12. The “board group” is 12M, while the first board is 12a while and second board is 12b, connected to the backplane 11 as shown (with “proximate” located connection positions; as abutment or near-abutment of 12a and 12b in Fig. 12).
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 § 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.
Applicant’s substantial amendments to independent claim 1 and 18 (dated on July 27, 2026) have necessitated further consideration of their claim scope, as a whole, and further search and analysis of prior art. Additionally, the way in which claims 1 and 18 are drafted, merely two boards (a “first board” and a “second board”) are all that is required to anticipate these claims (for a “plurality of boards”).
Claims 1, 4, 9, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imtaar et al. EP 3 382 434 (Nokia).
Regarding claims 1 and 18 (as a “communication device”), Imtaar et al. EP 3 382 434 (Nokia) teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-16; paragraphs [0042] – [0069]; Claims) an optical backplane interconnection apparatus 10 (cited Figs. 1-3, notably Fig. 2 for Applicant’s amendment dated July 27, 2026), comprising: an optical backplane (features 12 and 14 in combination as the “optical backplane”); and a plurality of boards 24 (as in Fig. 2, the two boards on the left-most side), wherein the optical backplane is orthogonal to any board of the plurality of boards (at least the two 24’s, but also is orthogonal to additional boards 28 and 26, Fig. 2), one side surface of the optical backplane is disposed opposite to one side surface of any board of the plurality of boards (see Fig. 2), the plurality of boards are located on a same side of the optical backplane (all boards 24 / 28 / 26 are on the same side (out of the page) in Fig. 2), the optical backplane is pluggably connected to any board of the plurality of boards (pluggable cards; ABS of Imtaar), the plurality of boards form at least one “board group” having at least a first board and a second board (see Fig. 2, the “board group” can be labeled as the two boards 24 next to each other on the same plane (up -[Wingdings font/0xE0] down) as “side-by-side”); and the first board and the second board are disposed side-by-side in a first direction, the first board is connected to the optical backplane at a position proximate to the second board (see how the upper 24 is connected “proximate to” the lower 24 in Fig. 2), the second board is connected to the optical backplane at a position proximate to the first board (see how the lower 24 is connected “proximate to” the upper 24 in Fig. 2), and the first direction is perpendicular to the plurality of boards (direction in Fig. 2 of Nokia is the same as the directions shown by Applicant’s non-limiting examples in their Figs. 11-12, the “board group” being 12M, with 1st and 2nd boards 12a and 12b), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claims 1 and 18.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the features of Fig. 2 of Nokia EP ‘434 teach that optical connectivity occurs between the backplane and the boards, while meets all claimed structure (as merely two boards are required for “plurality”). At least first and second elements function to “optically connect” these features.
Regarding claim 9, both electrical and optical connections are made between the backplane and the at least two boards, which meets all structure (Background; both optical data and electrical contacts are found between the elements 12 / 14 and 24’s.
Regarding dependent claim 21, the features of Fig. 2 of Nokia EP ‘434 teach that optical connectivity occurs between the backplane and the boards, while meets all claimed structure (as merely two boards are required for “plurality”). At least first and second elements function to “optically connect” these features.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imtaar et al. EP 3 382 434 (Nokia), based on independent claims 1 and 18, standing alone.
Regarding base claims 1 and 18 (as a “communication device”), Imtaar et al. EP 3 382 434 (Nokia) teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-16; paragraphs [0042] – [0069]; Claims) an optical backplane interconnection apparatus 10 (cited Figs. 1-3, notably Fig. 2 for Applicant’s amendment dated July 27, 2026), comprising: an optical backplane (features 12 and 14 in combination as the “optical backplane”); and a plurality of boards 24 (as in Fig. 2, the two boards on the left-most side), wherein the optical backplane is orthogonal to any board of the plurality of boards (at least the two 24’s, but also is orthogonal to additional boards 28 and 26, Fig. 2), one side surface of the optical backplane is disposed opposite to one side surface of any board of the plurality of boards (see Fig. 2), the plurality of boards are located on a same side of the optical backplane (all boards 24 / 28 / 26 are on the same side (out of the page) in Fig. 2), the optical backplane is pluggably connected to any board of the plurality of boards (pluggable cards; ABS of Imtaar), the plurality of boards form at least one “board group” having at least a first board and a second board (see Fig. 2, the “board group” can be labeled as the two boards 24 next to each other on the same plane (up -[Wingdings font/0xE0] down) as “side-by-side”); and the first board and the second board are disposed side-by-side in a first direction, the first board is connected to the optical backplane at a position proximate to the second board (see how the upper 24 is connected “proximate to” the lower 24 in Fig. 2), the second board is connected to the optical backplane at a position proximate to the first board (see how the lower 24 is connected “proximate to” the upper 24 in Fig. 2), and the first direction is perpendicular to the plurality of boards (direction in Fig. 2 of Nokia is the same as the directions shown by Applicant’s non-limiting examples in their Figs. 11-12, the “board group” being 12M, with 1st and 2nd boards 12a and 12b).
Regarding further dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, and 22-24, Imtaar et al. EP ‘434 does not expressly and exactly teach such further dependencies, in optical / electrical form for an overall backplane -[Wingdings font/0xE0] plural board configuration. However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the further attachments of boards, groups, backplanes, optical connectors, etc., because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imtaar et al. EP ‘434 to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (attached to/with the backplane and board configurations as in claims 1 / 18) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve the ability of a technician to address errors and remove both boards and backplanes as desired. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features (from claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, and 22-24) with an optical backplane interconnect device such as in Imtaar et al. EP ‘434. Further, the base structure of the pending independent claims 1 and 18 are clearly and fully anticipated by Imtaar et al. EP ‘434 itself (note the 35 U.S.C. 102 section prior). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Imtaar et al. EP ‘434 WO ‘388 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-17, and 22-24. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (pages 9-11), filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of originally filed claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, those rejections as mailed on April 27, 2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) / shift(s) of rejection is made in view of Imtaar EP ‘434. Any new grounds of rejection, or shifts of rejection, have been necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendments to independent claims 1 and / or 18 (metes-and-bounds(scope) of these claims is new). Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references N (CN ‘881) and U (the English Translation of CN ‘881), which pertain to the state of the art of optical backplanes connected to pluggable boards / cards in which the connection (optical and/or electrical) is orthogonal or perpendicular.
Applicant's amendment dated July 27, 2026 has necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection, or shift(s) of rejection, as presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
October 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights