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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending for examination in this Office Action. Claims 4-5 have been canceled. No claims have been allowed.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 112(d) on the basis that claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 were amended. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), p. 1. The Office agrees that Applicant’s amendments resolve the prior indefiniteness and dependent-claim-form issues as to claims 10, 11, 19, and 20. Accordingly, the prior rejections of claims 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) and § 112(b), are withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 newly introduces ambiguity by again reciting “a first light source” in dependent form after claim 16 already recites a first light source. As set forth below, claim 17 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 now incorporates the subject matter of former claims 4-5 and that Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), pp. 2-4. This argument is not persuasive. The fact that the prior non-final action relied on additional references for former claims 4 and 5 does not establish patentability of amended claim 1; rather, it confirms that the newly added limitations are being addressed in the present final action by the applied combination. The rejection of amended claim 1 is based on the combined teachings of the references for their respective complementary teachings. Takeuchi teaches the patch-panel-side optical connection identification architecture and connection indication function. Mudd teaches the transceiver-to-multi-fiber communication-medium environment, including transmit fibers, receive fibers, and unused fibers in the same MPO cable. Lu teaches first and second optical loop back paths in a multifiber optical cable. Archambault teaches supplying test light and determining continuity based on whether that light is received through a loop-back connection on unused optical paths. Read together, the references teach or at least render obvious the claimed first pair of dark fibers extending between the first and second ends, the first optical loop associated with the transceiver-side path, and the connection indication based on detection of light supplied to that loop. Applicant’s argument largely attacks the references individually, but the proper inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. [Takeuchi, Abstract; col. 4-8; Mudd, Abstract; col. 1; Lu, Abstract; Archambault, Abstract; col. 3-7].
Applicant further argues that Lu merely discloses a separate loop back connector for testing splice connections in a passive optical network and therefore does not teach that “the first optical transceiver forms a first optical loop with the first pair of dark fibers.” Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), pp. 2-3. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Lu for the entire claimed system architecture or for Lu’s disclosed end
use; rather, Lu is relied upon for its express teaching that a multifiber optical cable may include first and second optical loop back paths whose terminal ends are aligned to fibers in the multifiber cable, and that light injected on one optical path may be looped back and received on another optical path at the first location. A reference is relevant for all that it teaches and would reasonably have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, Mudd places the multifiber cable in a transceiver-connected MPO environment with unused middle fibers, and Lu teaches how paired fibers in that same multifiber environment may be connected into a loop-back path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that implementing Lu’s loop-back path on a selected pair of Mudd’s unused fibers at the transceiver-side first end of the optical communication medium would predictably yield the claimed first optical loop associated with the transceiver-side path. The claim does not require the loop to be formed by internal transceiver structure, does not exclude a loop established through a connection at the first end, and does not import the particular PON splice-testing embodiment of Lu into the claim.
Applicant additionally argues that Archambault validates only unused connections connected to dedicated loop-back connectors and therefore cannot validate whether an optical communication medium is connected between an optical transceiver and a patch panel. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), pp. 3-4. This argument is not persuasive because Archambault is not relied upon, by itself, for the entire transceiver-to-patch-panel architecture. Rather, Archambault is relied upon for the known continuity-validation technique of emitting test light into an unused optical path and determining whether that light is received after looping back. When that known technique is applied to the unused dark fibers of Mudd, the loop-back teaching of Lu, and the patch-panel-side indication architecture of Takeuchi, the resulting combination predictably indicates whether the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first patch panel is present. The claim does not require the dark fibers themselves to carry live traffic; to
the contrary, the claim expressly identifies them as dark fibers. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to distinguish Archambault on the ground that it validates unused paths is not persuasive, because the applied rejection uses Archambault for precisely the known test-light validation of unused/dark optical paths that a POSITA would have applied in the combined system.
Applicant further notes that the Office Action did not cite Molex or Kewitsch as teaching an optical loop formed by the first optical transceiver. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), p. 4. This argument is not persuasive. Kewitsch is not applied to independent claims 1 or 16 and therefore need not remedy the loop-based limitations of those claims; Kewitsch is applied only to claims 8 and 18 for the additional teaching of distinct indication states associated with the presence and absence of optical connectivity. Molex likewise is not necessary for the rejection of independent claims 1 or 16 and is applied to claims 2, 3, 13, and 20 for the conventional host / networking-switch environment of QSFP optical transceivers. To the extent Applicant invokes Molex, Molex in fact reinforces the obviousness of transceiver-side loopback usage because it teaches MPO loopback assemblies that can be mated directly to a parallel optical device such as a QSFP transceiver. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks regarding Molex and Kewitsch do not overcome the maintained rejections of independent claims 1 and 16.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 16 likewise is not taught or suggested by the applied references and that Rapipong was not cited with respect to any limitation incorporated into claim 16. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), pp. 4-5. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 16 remains rejected over Takeuchi in view of Mudd and further in view of Lu and Archambault. Rapipong is not required for the rejection of independent claim 16 and is applied only to claims 6, 7, and 17 for monitored patch-panel microcontroller logic. The newly added limitation of claim 16, namely that the first pair of dark fibers forms a first optical loop by a connection between the first pair of
dark fibers at the first end, is directly suggested by Lu’s teaching of loop-back paths whose terminal ends are aligned to fibers in a multifiber optical cable and by Lu’s teaching of injecting a signal on a first optical path, looping back the signal at a second location onto a second optical path, and receiving the signal at the first location. In the transceiver-connected unused-fiber environment of Mudd, that teaching would have suggested using a selected pair of unused fibers to form the claimed first optical loop at the first end of the optical communication medium. Archambault then teaches the first light source / first light detection device continuity-validation sequence on unused optical paths, and Takeuchi teaches the patch-panel-side connection indication architecture. As with claim 1, Applicant’s argument improperly focuses on whether any one reference discloses the entire claimed arrangement in identical form rather than on what the combined teachings would have suggested to a POSITA. Accordingly, the rejection of amended claim 16 is maintained.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-3, 6-15, and 17-20 are patentable for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 16. Applicant Remarks (06/24/2026), p. 5. This argument is not persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 16 remain unpatentable for the reasons discussed above, and the dependent claims add only further limitations that are separately taught or suggested by the applied prior art. Molex supplies the ordinary host-device / networking-switch environment for claims 2, 3, 13, and 20. Rapipong supplies monitored patch-panel microcontroller logic for claims 6, 7, and 17. Kewitsch supplies distinct indication states associated with presence and absence of connectivity for claims 8 and 18. Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault further teach or render obvious the additional second-indicator, second-loop, two-ended, and broader continuity-determination limitations recited in claims 10-12, 14-15, and 19. Applicant does not present separate, claim-specific arguments for those dependent claims beyond incorporation of the independent-claim arguments, and those incorporated arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons already stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior rejections of claims 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) and § 112(b), are withdrawn. However, amended claim 17 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17,
claim 16 already recites “a first light source” and “a first light detection device.” Claim 17, in dependent form, again recites “further comprising a first light source ...” and then recites “a first microcontroller communicably coupled with the first light source and the first light detection device ...” Because claim 17 reintroduces an element using the same ordinal identifier “first light source” instead of clearly referring back to the previously recited first light source or introducing a differently named additional light source, it is unclear whether claim 17 requires the same first light source of claim 16 or an additional light source. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore not reasonably certain, particularly with respect to which light source the recited microcontroller is communicably coupled.
Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
1. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
1. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US11531170B2) in view of Mudd et al. (US8406587B2) and further in view of Lu et al. (US8041178B2) and Archambault et al. (US9680569B2).
As per claim 1,
Takeuchi teaches a patch-panel-side optical connection identification architecture, stating: "An optical connection identification assembly includes first and second connectors for conveying optical signals within and away from the optical connection identification assembly ... and first and second photodiodes," and further that "Multiple optical connection identification assemblies are used in a system to prepare a connectivity map of a fiber optic system." [Takeuchi, Abstract].
Takeuchi also teaches an indication function for detected optical connectivity, stating that "the first signal indicator may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals to the first optical filter," and that "the signal indicator may be electrically connected to the sixth photodiode and may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals from the first optical connection identification assembly." [Takeuchi, col. 4-8].
Mudd teaches the claimed transceiver-to-multi-fiber communication-medium environment, stating that "the present invention relates to an adapter module to facilitate a connection between a plurality of fiber optic transceivers and a plurality of multi-fiber trunk cables," and that "the MPO mating face has four transmit channels (Tx) and four receive channels (Rx) ... [and] the middle four channels 5-8 are unused." [Mudd, Abstract; col. 1].
Thus, Mudd teaches a first optical transceiver, a first optical communication medium having first and second ends, at least one transmit optical fiber, at least one receive optical fiber, and unused fibers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be available as dark fibers. [Mudd, p. 10].
Lu then teaches the exact loop-back concept needed to convert a selected pair of those dark fibers into a first optical loop, disclosing that "The loop back connector also includes first and second optical loop back paths, each having first and second terminal ends positioned at
the interface side. The terminal ends of each loop back path are adapted to be aligned to fibers in the multifiber optical cable."
Lu further teaches that "The method includes injecting a signal on a first optical path at a first location, looping back the signal at a second location onto a second optical path, and receiving the signal on the second optical path at the first location." [Lu, Abstract].
Archambault supplies the missing functional teaching that the claimed indication is based on light supplied to the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop.
Archambault states in the Abstract that "A light source coupled to a first port of a first module is controlled to emit a test light. A determination is made whether or not the test light is received at a first photo-detector coupled to a second port of the first module." Archambault further teaches that "out-of service (un-used) connections can be validated by means of loop back connectors at each un-used port" and that validation may occur by "detecting that same signal ... after it loops back." [Archambault, Abstract; col. 3-7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply Lu’s loop-back-path teaching to a selected pair of Mudd’s unused fibers in the transceiver-connected multifiber optical communication medium and to apply Archambault’s test-light / receipt-based validation to that loop, while using Takeuchi’s patch-panel-side signal indicator as the claimed first connection indication element. The resulting combination would have yielded a first optical communication medium having transmit fibers, receive fibers, and a first pair of dark fibers forming a first optical loop associated with the transceiver-side path, together with a first connection indication element configured to indicate presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first patch panel in response to detection of light supplied to that loop. The claim does not require the loop to be formed by internal transceiver structure or exclude a loop established by a transceiver-side connection at the first end of the communication medium. [Takeuchi, Abstract; col. 4-8; Mudd, Abstract; col. 1; Lu, Abstract; Archambault, Abstract; col. 3-7].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault because the references address complementary aspects of the same practical optical-interconnect problem: confirming continuity in a dense multifiber optical system without disturbing live traffic fibers. Takeuchi provides the patch-panel-side indication architecture.
Mudd provides the ordinary transceiver-to-MPO-cable environment with unused fibers already present in the cable. Lu provides the known technique of using paired fibers in that multifiber
cable as loop-back paths. Archambault provides the known technique of emitting test light into an unused looped path and validating continuity based on whether the light is received. A POSITA would have recognized that combining these teachings would have predictably allowed a technician to verify transceiver-to-panel optical continuity using otherwise idle dark fibers, thereby improving installation verification, reducing troubleshooting time, and preserving the active transmit/receive channels for live traffic. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because each reference employs conventional optical connectors, fibers, detectors, and light sources performing their ordinary established functions.
As per claim 9,
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 9 additionally requires that the first connection indication element is defined by the first patch panel.
Takeuchi is expressly directed to an "INTELLIGENT PATCH PANEL" and teaches a patch-panel-side signal indicator.
More particularly, Takeuchi states that "the first signal indicator may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals to the first optical filter," and also that "the signal indicator may be electrically connected to the sixth photodiode and may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals from the first optical connection identification assembly." [Takeuchi, Abstract; col. 4-8].
Accordingly, the Takeuchi indicator is defined by, and physically associated with, the patch-panel-side optical connection identification assembly itself. It would have been obvious to define the connection indication element by the patch panel because doing so places the indicator at the same location where the connector mating occurs and provides direct local visibility for continuity indication.
As per claim 10,
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 10 additionally requires a second connection indication element configured to indicate the presence of an optical path between the first patch panel and a
second patch panel.
Takeuchi teaches a first optical connection identification assembly, a second optical connection identification assembly, and an intermediate optical fiber extending between them.
Takeuchi states that "an optical fiber connection identification system may include a first optical connection identification assembly, a second optical connection identification assembly, and an intermediate optical fiber," and further that the optical signal detection circuit may confirm "optical connectivity between the first and the second optical connection identification assemblies." [Takeuchi, col. 6-7].
Thus, Takeuchi supplies the second-side connection-indication architecture. A POSITA would have been motivated to provide the additional connection indication element of claim 10 because Takeuchi already recognizes the value of separate connectivity indication between adjacent optical connection identification assemblies. Extending that known additional-indicator functionality to show the path between a first patch panel and a second patch panel is a direct and predictable application of the same teaching in a segmented optical cabling system, thereby improving troubleshooting granularity and fault isolation between local-panel and remote-panel segments.
As per claim 11,
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 11 additionally requires a second pair of dark fibers forming a second optical loop, wherein the second optical loop is associated with determination of the presence of an optical path between the first patch panel and a second patch panel.
Mudd teaches that the multifiber MPO environment contains more than one unused fiber pair, expressly disclosing that the middle four channels are unused.
Lu teaches not merely one loop, but "first and second optical loop back paths" in the same multifiber context. [Mudd, col. 1; Lu, Abstract].
Archambault reinforces why an additional loop would have been used, teaching validation of "out-of service (un-used) connections ... by means of loop back connectors at each un-used port." [Archambault, col. 3-7].
Once a first pair of dark fibers is used for a first, near-end continuity determination, a POSITA would have recognized that another available dark-fiber pair in the same Mudd MPO environment could be formed into a second loop, using the second loop-back path expressly taught by Lu, to validate the different path segment extending between the first patch panel and the second patch panel. The benefit is substantial and concrete: a technician can distinguish a local transceiver-to-panel problem from a farther patch-panel-side or inter-panel problem without disturbing live traffic fibers.
As per claim 12,
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 12 additionally requires a second optical transceiver, a second optical communication medium, a second patch panel comprising one or more panel ports with a first panel port configured to be connected with the second optical communication medium, a third connection indication element, and a jumper cable configured to optically connect the first patch panel and the second patch panel.
Takeuchi teaches first and second optical connection identification assemblies connected by an intermediate optical fiber, with each assembly supporting optical connectivity detection and indication. [Takeuchi, col. 6-7].
Mudd teaches first and second fiber optic transceivers connected by a multi-fiber trunk cable. [Mudd, Abstract].
A POSITA would have been motivated to extend the first-side patch-panel indicator architecture of Takeuchi to a two-ended optical system because opposed transceiver sides and intermediate multi-fiber optical cables were already well known from Mudd. Using a first and second patch-panel-side identification assembly connected by an intermediate optical communication medium provides a predictable way to validate continuity on both ends of the link and across the jumper cable between the panels. The symmetrical arrangement would have been an especially sensible design choice because it allows each side of the system to perform local indication while still participating in the broader end-to-end continuity scheme.
As per claim 14,
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 14 additionally requires: at least one optical fiber configured for transmitting optical signals; at least one optical fiber configured for receiving optical signals; a first pair of dark fibers forming a first optical loop associated with determination of the presence of the optical path between the first patch panel and the first optical transceiver; and a second pair of dark fibers forming a second optical loop associated with determination of the presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the second optical transceiver.
Mudd supplies the underlying two-ended transceiver / trunk-cable environment with active Tx fibers, active Rx fibers, and unused fibers.
Lu supplies the use of first and second loop-back paths in that multifiber context.
Archambault supplies the continuity-validation purpose and receipt-of-test-light logic through loop-back connectors on unused optical paths. [Mudd, col. 1; Lu, Abstract; Archambault, Abstract; col. 3-7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a first dark-fiber loop to determine continuity between the first patch panel and the first optical transceiver, and to use a second dark-fiber loop, implemented from another available unused pair in the same Mudd MPO environment, to determine continuity over the broader first-transceiver-to-second-transceiver path.
A POSITA would have been motivated to provide both loops because the prior art favors staged or hierarchical validation of optical paths: local loop validation confirms near-end installation and patch-panel coupling, while a second farther-reaching loop confirms that the remainder of the optical path is intact, thereby dramatically improving fault isolation.
As per claim 15,
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 14 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 15 additionally requires a second connection indication element of the first patch panel configured to indicate the presence of an optical path between the first patch panel and the second optical transceiver and a fourth connection indication element of the second patch panel configured to indicate the presence of an optical path between the second
patch panel and the first optical transceiver.
Takeuchi expressly teaches bilateral assembly-side indication in a multi-assembly optical identification system.
In particular, Takeuchi explains that optical signals may be used "to confirm optical connectivity between the first optical connection identification assembly and the second optical connection identification assembly", and further teaches that "The signal indicator may be electrically connected to the sixth photodiode and may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals from the first optical connection identification assembly." [Takeuchi, col. 4-8].
Once claim 14’s first and second dark-fiber loops are present, the remaining limitation of claim 15 is the provision of corresponding panel-local indication for the broader path from each side of the system. Providing an indicator at each relevant patch panel would have been an obvious implementation choice with predictable benefits, including better troubleshooting and reduced ambiguity when tracing faults through jumper-cable and trunk-cable segments.
As per claim 16,
As per claim 16, Takeuchi teaches a patch-panel-side optical connection identification assembly that forms part of an intelligent patch panel and includes the claimed port-side optical connectivity hardware.
Takeuchi states: "An optical connection identification assembly includes first and second connectors for conveying optical signals within and away from the optical connection identification assembly ... and first and second photodiodes," and further explains that "the first and the second connectors may be configured for conveying optical signals within and away from the first optical connection identification assembly," "the first photodiode may be configured for receiving an optical signal from the first optical filter," and "the second photodiode may be configured for receiving an optical signal from the second optical filter."
Takeuchi also teaches that "the first signal indicator may be configured for indicating the conveyance of optical signals to the first optical filter" and that "the signal indicator may be electrically connected to the sixth photodiode and may be configured for indicating the
conveyance of optical signals from the first optical connection identification assembly." [Takeuchi, Abstract; col. 4-8].
Mudd supplies the express optical-transceiver / multi-fiber communication-medium environment for the connected patch-panel ports, including transmit fibers, receive fibers, and unused fibers in the same MPO cable. [Mudd, Abstract; col. 1].
Lu then teaches that the first pair of dark fibers may form a first optical loop by a connection between the first pair of dark fibers at an interface side of the multifiber cable, stating that the loop back connector includes first and second optical loop back paths whose terminal ends are aligned to fibers in the multifiber cable. [Lu, Abstract].
Archambault supplies the first light source / first light detection device continuity-validation sequence, stating that "A light source coupled to a first port of a first module is controlled to emit a test light. A determination is made whether or not the test light is received at a first photo-detector coupled to a second port of the first module," and further teaching validation of out-of-service unused connections by means of loop back connectors. [Archambault, Abstract; col. 3-7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use Takeuchi’s patch-panel-side connectors, photodiodes, and signal indicator in Mudd’s known transceiver-to-multi-fiber-medium environment, to implement Lu’s loop-back path on a selected pair of the unused fibers at the first end of the communication medium, and to use Archambault’s known source / detector continuity-validation technique on that first optical loop.
The combined teachings render obvious a patch panel comprising one or more panel ports, a first light source optically coupled with a first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop, a first light detection device coupled with that same loop, and a first connection indication element configured to indicate presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first panel port in response to the first light detection device detecting light supplied to the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop.
A POSITA would have had reason to make this combination because it would have allowed the patch panel itself to confirm continuity to the transceiver side using otherwise unused fibers, thereby improving installation verification, reducing troubleshooting time, and making panel-side confirmation available exactly where technicians make and inspect optical connections.
As per claim 19,
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 16 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 19 additionally requires a second connection indication element configured to indicate the presence of an optical path between the first panel port and a second patch panel.
Takeuchi teaches a first optical connection identification assembly, a second optical connection identification assembly, and an intermediate optical fiber extending between them.
More specifically, Takeuchi states that "an optical fiber connection identification system may include a first optical connection identification assembly, a second optical connection identification assembly, and an intermediate optical fiber," and further that "the optical signal detection circuit may be configured for receiving the optical signals from the light source to confirm optical connectivity between the first and the second optical connection identification assemblies."
Takeuchi additionally teaches that "optical signals emitted from second light source 827 B of optical connection identification assembly 801 A are received by fourth photodiode 826 B of optical connection identification assembly 801 B," and that the receiving assembly "sends an electrical signal ... to indicate optical connectivity between optical connection identification assemblies." [Takeuchi, col. 4-8; col. 20].
Thus, once patch-panel-to-adjacent-assembly continuity monitoring is known from Takeuchi, providing the additional connection indication element of claim 19 to show connectivity from the first panel port toward a second patch panel would have been a routine and highly desirable implementation choice that improves troubleshooting granularity in segmented optical cabling systems.
Claims 2, 3, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al. and further in view of Lu et al. and Archambault et al., and further in view of Molex MPO Fiber Optic Loopback Assemblies.
As per claim 2,
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 2 additionally requires a first computing device or first networking switch comprising one or more connections, wherein a first connection of the first computing device or the first networking switch is configured to be connected with the first optical transceiver.
Molex teaches MPO loopback assemblies used in the ordinary host-device / networking environment for optical transceivers, stating: "For compact testing of QSFP optical transceivers or network optical links, Molex’s MPO Loopback Assemblies offer a new, robust solution," and that the loopback "can be mated directly to a parallel optical device such as a Quad Small Form-factor Pluggable (QSFP) transceiver with a 4-lane configuration."
Molex further identifies applications including "Loopback testing for network cards" and "Testing on QSFP Modules." [Molex, p. 1].
A POSITA would have been motivated to use the optical transceiver of the combined Takeuchi / Mudd / Lu / Archambault system with a computing device or networking switch because that is the ordinary and intended operating environment for QSFP and similar optical transceivers. Adding this conventional host-side environment does not change the principle of operation of the underlying combination; instead, it places the already-known transceiver-and-patch-panel optical path into its expected network context.
As per claim 3,
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, Archambault, and Molex, except wherein claim 3 additionally requires that the first connection indication element indicate the presence of the optical path between the first computing device or the first networking switch and the first patch panel in an instance in which the first optical
transceiver is optically coupled with the first patch panel via the first optical communication medium.
Once Molex places the first optical transceiver in a computing-device or networking-switch environment, and once the Takeuchi / Mudd / Lu / Archambault combination supplies a patch-panel-side optical path indicator for the transceiver-to-panel connection, the same indicator necessarily reflects the presence of the broader device-to-panel optical path.
A POSITA would have recognized that no new hardware principle is required to obtain that result; the same panel-side indicator can be interpreted at a higher system level when the transceiver is connected to host equipment. This is a direct and predictable consequence of using the known patch-panel indicator in the known transceiver-host environment, and it would have provided the practical benefit of letting an installer or technician verify host-to-panel optical continuity from the panel side. [Molex, p. 1].
As per claim 13,
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 12 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, Archambault, and Molex, except wherein claim 13 additionally requires a second computing device or second networking switch comprising one or more connections, wherein a first connection of the second computing device or the second networking switch is configured to be connected with the second optical transceiver.
As discussed above with respect to claim 2, Molex teaches the ordinary networking environment in which optical transceivers are connected to host equipment such as network cards and network optical links. Applying that same conventional host-side environment to the second optical transceiver of claim 12 would have been nothing more than using the same known networking arrangement at the opposite side of the claimed optical system. A POSITA would have been motivated to connect the second optical transceiver to a second computing device or networking switch for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 2, but now in the symmetrical two-sided system of claim 12.
As per claim 20,
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 16 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 20 additionally requires that the first optical transceiver is further connected with a first computing device or first networking switch comprising one or more connections such that the first connection indication element is further configured to indicate the presence of the optical path between the first computing device or the first networking switch and the first panel port in an instance in which the first optical transceiver is optically coupled with the first panel port via the first optical communication medium.
As discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 3, Molex teaches QSFP transceiver use in host networking environments, while the Takeuchi / Mudd / Lu / Archambault combination teaches the patch-panel-side connection indication architecture. The combined teachings therefore render obvious the further limitation of claim 20.
A POSITA would have found claim 20 obvious because, once the patch panel of claim 16 is used in its conventional host-transceiver environment, the same patch-panel-side connectivity indication naturally signifies the presence of the connected host-to-panel optical path. This is not a change in the operating principle of the indicator; rather, it is the predictable interpretation of the same optical continuity information in the larger installed system environment. [Molex, p. 1].
Claims 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al. and further in view of Lu et al. and Archambault et al., and further in view of Rapipong et al. (US20170141846A1).
As per claim 6,
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 6 additionally requires that the first patch panel further comprises a first light source optically coupled with the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop, a first light detection device coupled with the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop, and a first microcontroller communicably coupled with the first light source and the first light detection device and configured to determine the presence of the optical path
between the first optical transceiver and the first patch panel.
Archambault expressly teaches the source / detector portion of this limitation in the Abstract, namely "A light source coupled to a first port of a first module is controlled to emit a test light. A determination is made whether or not the test light is received at a first photo-detector coupled to a second port of the first module." [Archambault, Abstract].
The microcontroller-based patch-panel monitoring portion is expressly taught by Rapipong, which discloses a monitored patch panel unit with "connectors configured to receive a corresponding optical fiber", photodiodes and a data acquisition device, and further states that "A microcontroller is connected to the data acquisition device to store the data captured by the data acquisition device. The computer is configured to receive the stored data from the microcontroller, and to identify to which connectors optical fibers are connected." [Rapipong, Abstract].
Takeuchi also teaches the same patch-panel-side optical detection / indication architecture, including photodiodes and a light source within an optical connection identification assembly. Taken together, the references teach the full set of claim 6 components.
A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate these familiar elements into one panel-local continuity engine so that the patch panel itself could launch validation light into the dark-fiber loop, detect the returned light, and automatically determine whether the path is present, thereby reducing reliance on external test equipment and simplifying diagnostics and installation.
As per claim 7,
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, Archambault, and Rapipong, except wherein claim 7 additionally requires that the first microcontroller is configured to cause the first light source to emit light into the first pair of dark fibers and cause the first connection indication element to indicate the presence of the optical path in response to receipt of the emitted light by the first light detection device.
Takeuchi expressly discloses controller-driven source operation and receipt-based connectivity confirmation, teaching that "The light source may be driven, i.e., controlled ... and may be configured for emitting optical signals" and that an optical signal detection circuit may be configured "to confirm optical connectivity between the first optical connection
identification assembly and the second optical connection identification assembly." [Takeuchi, col. 6-7].
Likewise, Archambault teaches the same launch-detect sequence by controlling a light source to emit a test light and determining whether that light is received at a photo-detector, while Rapipong teaches controller-based state determination and indicator output at the patch panel. Thus, the combined references teach the entire operational flow of claim 7.
A POSITA would have been motivated to implement that launch-detect-indicate sequence because it is the ordinary and expected control flow of a source / detector continuity engine, yielding the expected result of panel-local path validation.
As per claim 17,
With respect to claim 17, notwithstanding the separate rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and treating the repeated “first light source” language as referring to the panel-side source already present in claim 16 for purposes of the obviousness analysis, all limitations of claim 16 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except insofar as claim 17 further requires a first microcontroller communicably coupled with the first light source and the first light detection device and configured to determine the presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first panel port. Mudd teaches the dark-fiber MPO environment, Lu teaches the first optical loop, Archambault teaches the source-and-detector continuity-validation sequence, and Rapipong teaches the monitored patch-panel microcontroller logic.
More particularly, Lu discloses “first and second optical loop back paths” in a multifiber optical cable. [Lu, Abstract]. Read together with the patch-panel environment of Takeuchi and the dark-fiber MPO environment of Mudd, this teaching would have suggested a first optical loop formed by dark fibers and associated with the first optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first panel port.
Further, Archambault discloses “A light source coupled to a first port of a first module is controlled to emit a test light. A determination is made whether or not the test light is received at a first photo-detector coupled to a second port of the first module.”
[Archambault, Abstract].
Thus, Archambault teaches the claimed first light source and first light detection device operating together to validate continuity through the loop.
Within analogous art, Rapipong discloses a patch panel unit with “connectors configured to receive a corresponding optical fiber”, photodiodes measuring optical power, a data acquisition device, and “A microcontroller is connected to the data acquisition device to store the data captured by the data acquisition device. The computer is configured to receive the stored data from the microcontroller, and to identify to which connectors optical fibers are connected.” [Rapipong, Abstract]. Accordingly, Rapipong teaches the claimed first microcontroller communicably coupled with the source/detector monitoring hardware and configured to determine whether the optical path is present.
Taken together, these teachings render obvious the entire claimed patch-panel-side continuity engine of claim 17, including the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop, the first light source optically coupled with that loop, the first light detection device coupled with that loop, and the first microcontroller configured to determine the presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and the first panel port.
A POSITA would have been motivated to provide the claim 17 continuity engine in the patch panel because the prior art already teaches that dark or otherwise non-traffic-carrying fibers can be reserved for loop-back continuity functions, that a light source and photo-detector can launch and validate a test light through such a loop, and that a monitored patch panel can locally determine and report connection status through controller-based logic. Combining Lu and Mudd with Archambault and Rapipong would have yielded immediate panel-local validation of whether the first optical transceiver is properly coupled to the first panel port, without consuming active data fibers and without relying on separate external test equipment. Such a combination would have improved installation efficiency, troubleshooting speed, and connection reliability, while merely using each reference according to its known purpose and producing predictable results. Accordingly, claim 17 would have been obvious to a POSITA.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al. and further in view of Lu et al. and Archambault et al., and further in view of Kewitsch (US20120321255A1).
As per claim 8,
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 8 additionally requires that the first connection indication element display a first indication state associated with an absence of the optical path and a second indication state associated with the presence of the optical path.
Kewitsch expressly teaches live-fiber indicator lights in which the state of the light indicates whether the optical fiber attached to the receptacle is carrying live traffic or is dark.
More specifically, Kewitsch states that the optical power readings may be used "to activate light emitting diodes 63 (LED's) adjacent the connector receptacle," and that "The state of the LED indicates whether the optical fiber attached to receptacle 30 is carrying live traffic or is dark."
Kewitsch further explains: "These LED signals, or live-fiber indicator lights, help to prevent technicians from erroneously removing those fiber optic patch cords carrying live traffic ... attached to the front of patch-panel 79." [Kewitsch ¶ [0120]-[0121]].
Kewitsch thus expressly teaches different indication states corresponding to the presence or absence of an optical path.
A POSITA would have been motivated to implement distinct first and second indication states because a multi-state visual output is a routine and highly useful way to communicate whether a tested optical path is absent or present, thereby improving maintenance efficiency and making the panel-side connectivity indicator more informative without changing its underlying function.
As per claim 18,
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 16 are taught by Takeuchi, Mudd, Lu, and Archambault, except wherein claim 18 additionally requires first and second indication states associated with absence and presence of the optical path.
As discussed above with respect to claim 8, Kewitsch expressly teaches distinct live / dark indicator states corresponding to the presence and absence of optical connectivity, stating that "The state of the LED indicates whether the optical fiber attached to receptacle 30 is carrying live traffic or is dark," and referring to those LEDs as "live-fiber indicator lights." [Kewitsch ¶ [0120]-[0121]].
In the context of claim 18, those teachings apply directly to the first connection indication element of the patch panel itself. A POSITA would have found claim 18 obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 8, but now in the apparatus context of claim 16.
Once the panel-side indicator of claim 16 is known, it would have been obvious to implement that indicator using different optical states for absent and present path conditions so as to provide immediate and unambiguous feedback to a user at the patch panel.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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, David Payne, can be reached at (571) 272-3024. 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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights