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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-06-27 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are pending for examination in this Office Action. Claims 4-5 have been canceled. No claims have been allowed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) and MPEP § 608.01 (Form Paragraph 7.29). Appropriate correction is required. Any amendment should correct only the identified informalities and should not introduce new matter.
Paragraph [0041] recites
“another optical transceiver 110 may optically connected with one or more connections 107 of a second computing device 105.” The phrase “may optically connected” is grammatically incomplete. Appropriate grammatical correction is required.
Paragraph [0045] recites
“the first light source 210 may include a light emitting diode (LED) configure to emit light.” The word “configure” is grammatically inconsistent with the sentence and should be corrected as appropriate.
Paragraph [0052] recites
“in which least one optical fiber is configured for transmitting optical signals” and later recites “a plurality of optical fibers 310 configured for receiving optical fibers.” The first phrase omits a word before “least one,” and the second phrase is internally inconsistent with the surrounding disclosure identifying fibers 310 as fibers for receiving optical signals. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0057] recites
“the components of the first patch panel 200 may cause perform an optical connection indication operation.” The phrase “may cause perform” is grammatically defective. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0060]
refers to “a first light detection device of the second patch panel 500”, although the surrounding disclosure identifies reference numeral 400 as the second patch panel and reference numeral 500 as the second optical transceiver. Paragraph [0060] also recites “the first pair of dark fibers 512and” without a space between “512” and “and.” Appropriate correction of these reference-numeral and typographical inconsistencies is required.
Paragraph [0061]
states that optical signals received by first optical transceiver 300 are converted to corresponding electrical signals that are “provided to the first computing device 300.” Elsewhere in the disclosure, reference numeral 300 identifies the first optical transceiver and reference numeral 103 identifies the first computing device. Appropriate correction of the inconsistent reference numeral is required.
Paragraph [0065]
describes second optical transceiver 500 and second optical communication medium 516, but later refers to “the first end of the first optical communication medium 516.” Because reference numeral 516 is otherwise identified as the second optical communication medium, the terminology is internally inconsistent. Appropriate correction is required.
The foregoing objections are directed to evident grammatical, typographical, and reference-numeral inconsistencies. Applicant is required to make only such corrections as are supported by the originally filed disclosure; no new matter should be introduced.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that the prior Takeuchi/Mudd/Lu/Archambault combination did not teach that the first optical transceiver optically couples the first dark fiber to the second dark fiber to form the first optical loop.
Applicant’s argument does not overcome the present rejection. The present rejection does not rely on the former Lu-based theory for that newly-emphasized limitation. Instead, the Office now applies Magri, which expressly teaches that the optical interface is or comprises an optical transceiver, that a switch at the remote optical interface connects the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber to provide a loopback, and that the optical switch may be integrated into the optical interface unit. [Magri, ¶¶ [0041], [0068], [0087]].
The Office additionally applies Jiang, which independently teaches an optical transceiver device containing an optical switching module, MPO optical transceiving ports, input-to-output bypass switching, and express loop-back detection. [Jiang, ¶¶ [0049], [0052]-[0053]].
Applicant also argues that each claimed dark fiber must extend between the first and second ends of the optical communication medium.
Mudd discloses a twelve-fiber multifiber cable extending between opposite connector ends and expressly discloses transmit fibers, receive fibers, and dark fibers in the same cable/patch-cord architecture. [Mudd, ¶¶ [0005], [0007], [0031]].
Thus, the present combination uses end-to-end cable fibers from Mudd, not short internal loopback stubs, and applies Magri’s far-side first-fiber-to-second-fiber optical coupling to a selected pair of those end-to-end dark fibers.
Applicant’s hindsight argument is also not persuasive.
Archambault expressly teaches validating currently-unused MPO fibers and expressly describes detecting the same signal after loopback to ensure that the dark fibers have continuity and sufficiently low losses. [Archambault, ¶¶ [0013]-[0014], [0043]].
Takeuchi separately teaches the intelligent patch-panel detection and indication architecture.
Accordingly, the newly-applied combination directly addresses the limitation Applicant identified as absent from the prior rejection and provides an articulated reason, grounded in the references themselves, for the combination.
Withdrawal of Prior Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
In view of Applicant’s amendment filed September 11, 2026, the prior rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim 17 now refers to “the first light source” and “the first light detection device,” thereby referring back to the corresponding elements already introduced in independent claim 16 and curing the ambiguity identified in the prior Office Action.
Accordingly, the prior § 112(b) rejection of claim 17 is no longer maintained.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected of the following informality.
Claim 16
In the amendment filed September 11, 2026, Applicant amended claim 16 to recite, in pertinent part, “wherein the first optical transceiver optically couples the first dark fiber to the second dark fiber to form a first optical loop” and deleted the subsequent language “by a connection between the first pair of dark fibers at the first end;”. Because the semicolon following the deleted language was also deleted, claim 16, when read without amendment markings, proceeds directly from “to form a first optical loop” to the separately recited limitation “a first light source optically coupled with the first pair of dark fibers forming the first optical loop” without punctuation separating the two limitations.
Appropriate punctuation should be supplied after “a first optical loop” so that the separately recited limitations are clearly delineated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
The key to supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a clear articulation of the reason or reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, with an articulated reasoning having a rational underpinning. The analysis below identifies the teachings relied upon for each limitation and states a claim-specific reason for the proposed combination.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter disclosed in the prior art was created by another (i.e., not by the inventive entity) unless proven otherwise. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim, and any evidence of common ownership/assignment as of the effective filing date, so that the examiner may properly 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 claimed invention(s).
Claims 1, 9, 10, 16, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US 2020/0166718 A1) in view of Mudd et al. (US 2011/0274400 A1), further in view of Magri et al. (US 2021/0058153 A1), further in view of Jiang (US 2014/0241718 A1), and further in view of Archambault et al. (US 2016/0099851 A1).
Claim 1
Takeuchi expressly teaches the claimed patch-panel-side optical-connection identification architecture. In the detailed description, Takeuchi states: “optical connection identification system 100, which in the example shown is in the form of a patch panel, provides for optical connections and for signals that such connections have been made. As shown, system 100 generally includes a plurality of first connectors 110 defining ends of fiber optic cables.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0095], FIGS. 1A-1B].
Takeuchi further teaches panel-local optical detection and indication. In the paired-assembly embodiment, Takeuchi discloses: “Upon receiving such optical signals, fourth photodiode 826B of optical connection identification assembly 801B sends an electrical signal, such as to a network connected to a terminal, to indicate optical connectivity between optical connection identification assemblies 801A, 801B.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0109], FIG. 8A].
This is the same basic detection-to-indication relationship required by the recited first connection indication element.
As to the recited first optical transceiver and the first optical communication medium containing active transmit/receive fibers and otherwise-unused fibers, Mudd expressly teaches the relevant MPO/QSFP environment.
Mudd states: “The MPO mating face has four transmit channels (Tx) and four receive channels (RX). Typically, the first four channels 1-4 are used for transmission of data and the last four channels 9-12 are used for the reception of data. The middle four channels 5-8 are unused, perhaps reserved for the future use of fiber optic transceivers with expanded abilities.” [Mudd, ¶ [0005], FIG. 2].
Mudd also expressly places those fibers in an end-to-end communication medium connected to optical transceivers.
Mudd discloses: “As illustrated, a multi-fiber trunk cable 35, having twelve optical fibers therein, is used to connect the first fiber optic transceiver 31 to the second fiber optic transceiver 33. A first female MPO connector plug 37 at a first end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a first male MPO port 39 of the first fiber optic transceiver 31. A second female MPO connector plug 41 at a second end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a second male MPO port 43 of the second fiber optic transceiver 33.” [Mudd, ¶ [0007], FIG. 3].
Thus, the individual fibers of the multifiber cable extend between opposite cable ends, exactly as required by the claim’s first-end/second-end communication-medium language.
Applying Takeuchi’s connector-defined patch-panel interface to the opposite cable end taught by Mudd would also yield the claimed first panel port connected to the second end of the first optical communication medium. Takeuchi expressly identifies connectors 110 as ends of fiber-optic cables at the patch panel [Takeuchi, ¶ [0095]], while Mudd supplies the opposite cable-end MPO connection. [Mudd, ¶ [0007]].
The “dark fiber” characterization is not an examiner-created label.
Mudd expressly states for the transceiver-side patch cords: “The first, second and third patch cords 121, 123 and 125 have four transmit fibers, four receive fibers and four dark fibers, as did the trunk cable 35 of FIG. 4.” [Mudd, ¶ [0031], FIG. 5].
Accordingly, Mudd teaches a single optical cable environment containing transmit fibers, receive fibers, and multiple dark fibers available for an auxiliary optical function.
Mudd does not itself expressly describe optically coupling two of those dark fibers together at the transceiver end to produce the particular out-and-back continuity loop now recited. That feature is expressly taught by Magri.
Magri explains: “Each interface 121, 131 is, or comprises, one or more respective optical transceivers.” [Magri, ¶ [0041]].
Magri further teaches two optical fibers extending between the local and remote nodes and a remote-side optical switch that joins the paths.
More particularly, Magri states: “As shown in FIG. 3b, when the optical switch is in the second configuration the optical switch connects (or provides an optical signal path between) the first optical fiber 242 and the second optical fiber 244. In this way the optical switch in the second configuration may pass optical signals 125 received at the remote node 130 along the first optical fiber 242, away from the remote node 130 along the second optical fiber 244. In effect, in the second configuration, the optical switch 132 may provide a loopback of optical signals 125 received at the remote node 130.” [Magri, ¶ [0068], FIG. 3B].
Magri removes any ambiguity as to whether that fiber-to-fiber coupling may be part of the optical-transceiver-side interface itself.
Magri expressly states: “the remote optical interface unit 131 and the optical switch 132 are described as separate entities. It will be appreciated however, that the optical switch 132 may be integrated into the remote optical interface unit 131.” [Magri, ¶ [0087]].
Because Magri previously defines the optical interface as or as comprising one or more optical transceivers, this teaching directly establishes a transceiver-side interface in which the two fibers are optically coupled to create the return loop.
Jiang independently confirms that the optical switching/loopback structure may be incorporated within an optical transceiver device itself.
Jiang describes an “optical transceiver device 1” containing an optical switching module 13 and an optical transceiving port 15, and teaches that the switching module may be optically coupled by an MPO connector. [Jiang, ¶¶ [0036]-[0041]].
In bypass mode, Jiang states: “after the optical signal input by the optical input port 1311 is reflected totally by the optical element 1314, the optical signal traveling channel will switch from the optical channel of the optical input port 1311 to the optical channel of the optical output port 1312, such that the optical signal may be outputted from the optical output port 1312 without the in-line equipment 4.” [Jiang, ¶ [0049]].
Jiang further explains that the same optical switching module may “perform loop back detection for self-inspection” and that the optical transceiving port may provide an MPO connector while the optical switching module provides the optical switches. [Jiang, ¶¶ [0052]-[0053], FIGS. 7-10].
Jiang therefore corroborates the structural point that a transceiver device itself can contain the optical switching/coupling structure that redirects an optical input channel to an optical output channel, while Magri provides the exact two-fiber outbound/return line topology.
The use of the otherwise unused/dark fibers for that loop and for continuity detection is independently taught and strongly motivated by Archambault.
In discussing MPO cables, Archambault states: “One challenge of using multi-fiber connectors like MPO’s is that the user must be able to confirm during the initial installation that all fibers within a particular MPO have continuity and acceptable losses, including fibers that may not be in use initially but that could become active after a node upgrade.”
Archambault further states: “It is, therefore, desirable to provide a connection validation technique capable of validating all fibers of a multi-fiber cable, including fibers that are not currently in use.” [Archambault, ¶¶ [0013]-[0014]].
Archambault then teaches the test-light continuity principle: “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 connected to a second port. Continuity of a connection between the first port and the second port is validated when the test light is received at the first photo-detector.” [Archambault, ¶ [0016]].
Archambault later makes the dark-fiber loopback application explicit: “In this example, the WSS module on degree 1 is sending a signal from Demux port 5 and detecting that same signal at Mux port 5, after it loops back through the FIM. This ensures that the dark fibers that will be used at a later date to provision a new MCS have continuity and sufficiently low losses.” [Archambault, ¶ [0043], FIG. 5D].
Taken together, the references teach or render obvious every limitation of claim 1.
Takeuchi provides the first patch panel, panel ports, optical detection hardware, and connection indication functionality.
Mudd provides the transceiver-connected multifiber optical communication medium having transmit fibers, receive fibers, and multiple dark fibers extending through the cable.
Magri provides the exact transceiver-side two-fiber return topology, and Jiang independently confirms that the optical switching/loopback structure may reside within an MPO-capable optical transceiver device itself.
Archambault provides the express teaching and purpose of assigning otherwise-unused/dark MPO fibers to a loopback continuity test using supplied test light and detection of the returned light.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because they solve complementary portions of the same practical optical-installation problem. Mudd shows that a QSFP/MPO link already contains fibers that are not carrying user data. Archambault expressly recognizes that leaving such fibers unverified is undesirable and teaches using them for continuity validation.
Magri teaches a reliable two-fiber return topology in which the far-side optical-transceiver interface optically connects the outward fiber to the return fiber.
Takeuchi teaches placing the detection and indication function at the patch-panel location where a technician makes and inspects the physical connection.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to implement Magri’s line-side return function using Jiang’s transceiver-integrated optical switching because Jiang teaches placing bypass/loopback switching inside an MPO-capable optical transceiver device. Integrating that known optical switching function into the transceiver-side interface would reduce separate external components and cabling while preserving Magri’s same first-fiber-to-second-fiber loopback principle. The modification would have been a predictable use of known optical switching elements according to their established functions.
Applying Magri’s known return topology to a selected pair of Mudd’s dark fibers, for the specific unused-fiber validation purpose expressly taught by Archambault and reporting the result using Takeuchi’s panel-local indication architecture would have yielded a predictable continuity-check system without disturbing live Tx/Rx traffic.
The proposed combination does not require a change in the principle of operation of any reference. The active transmit and receive fibers of Mudd remain available for ordinary communication. The selected dark fibers perform the auxiliary validation function for which Archambault expressly identifies unused MPO fibers as suitable. The far-side optical interface performs the known first-fiber-to-second-fiber loopback taught by Magri, and the panel side launches/detects the validation light and indicates successful continuity in the manner taught by Takeuchi.
The expected result is exactly the claimed result: when the transceiver and patch panel are properly coupled through the communication medium, supplied light traverses one dark fiber, is optically directed into the other dark fiber at the transceiver side, returns to the panel side, is detected, and causes an indication of the presence of the optical path.
Claim 1 would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 9 additionally requires that the first connection indication element is defined by the first patch panel.
However, within analogous art, Takeuchi expressly teaches that the optical connection identification system itself may be the patch panel: “optical connection identification system 100, which in the example shown is in the form of a patch panel, provides for optical connections and for signals that such connections have been made.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0095]].
The same disclosure places photodiodes, light sources, sensing structures, signal indicators, and controller functions in the optical connection identification assemblies forming that panel. [Takeuchi, ¶¶ [0096]-[0109]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to define the indication element at the patch panel because the purpose of the indicator is to provide immediate local confirmation at the exact physical interface being installed, serviced, or troubleshot. Locating the indicator on the panel eliminates the need to consult remote equipment merely to determine whether a panel-side optical path is complete. This is the ordinary and expressly intended use of Takeuchi’s intelligent patch-panel architecture, and the addition does not alter the dark-fiber loop or the operation of the transceiver.
Claim 9 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, 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.
However, within analogous art, Takeuchi expressly discloses multiple optical connection identification assemblies connected to each other by an intermediate optical fiber.
Takeuchi states: “optical connection identification system 200 includes first optical connection identification assembly 201 and second optical connection identification assembly 202, which may be substantially in the form of and function in substantially the same manner as optical connection identification system 100, optically connected by intermediate optical fiber 203. In this example, optical signals may be conveyed from the first optical connection assembly 201 to the second optical connection identification assembly 202 along the intermediate optical fiber 203, and vice versa, may be conveyed from the second optical connection assembly 202 to the first optical connection identification assembly 201 along the intermediate optical fiber 203.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0097], FIG. 2].
The same reference teaches separate detection/indication functionality at the connected assemblies. In the FIG. 8A embodiment, Takeuchi states: “Upon receiving such optical signals, fourth photodiode 826B of optical connection identification assembly 801B sends an electrical signal, such as to a network connected to a terminal, to indicate optical connectivity between optical connection identification assemblies 801A, 801B.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0109], FIG. 8A].
Thus, Takeuchi teaches not merely one local indicator but a distributed architecture capable of indicating connectivity between separate panel-side assemblies.
Takeuchi does not expressly label assemblies 201 and 202 as two separate patch panels. However, Takeuchi expressly identifies its optical connection identification system as being in the form of a patch panel at [Takeuchi, ¶ [0095]].
Using the linked identification assemblies at respective panel interfaces in a segmented installation therefore would have been a predictable panel-level implementation of Takeuchi’s disclosed architecture, rather than a change in its operating principle. [Takeuchi, ¶¶ [0095], [0097]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a second indication element for the inter-panel segment because segmented optical cabling is diagnosed more efficiently when local transceiver-to-panel continuity can be distinguished from panel-to-panel continuity.
Once Takeuchi teaches multiple panel-side identification assemblies linked by an intermediate fiber and capable of detecting and reporting connectivity, providing a dedicated second indicator for the inter-panel path is a predictable use of the same known indication technique. It adds troubleshooting granularity without changing the operation of the first dark-fiber loop.
Claim 10 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 16
Independent claim 16 is directed to the patch panel itself.
Takeuchi provides the core claimed panel architecture. Takeuchi expressly teaches an intelligent optical connection identification system “in the form of a patch panel” having connector-defined cable interfaces. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0095], publication p. 8].
Takeuchi further teaches panel-local photodiodes, light sources, detection circuitry, and signal-indication functionality. [Takeuchi, ¶¶ [0098]-[0109]].
As to the recited communication medium comprising a plurality of optical fibers and a first pair of dark fibers, each extending between the first and second ends, Mudd expressly teaches an MPO-connected optical transceiver and a multifiber cable in which the fibers span the two cable ends.
Mudd states: “As illustrated, a multi-fiber trunk cable 35, having twelve optical fibers therein, is used to connect the first fiber optic transceiver 31 to the second fiber optic transceiver 33. A first female MPO connector plug 37 at a first end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a first male MPO port 39 of the first fiber optic transceiver 31. A second female MPO connector plug 41 at a second end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a second male MPO port 43 of the second fiber optic transceiver 33.” [Mudd, ¶ [0007]].
Mudd further states that the MPO arrangement contains four Tx channels, four Rx channels, and four unused channels. [Mudd, ¶ [0005]].
Mudd expressly identifies those additional fibers as dark fibers in the corresponding MPO patch-cord implementation: “The first, second and third patch cords 121, 123 and 125 have four transmit fibers, four receive fibers and four dark fibers.” [Mudd, ¶ [0031]].
Thus, the claimed plurality of fibers and pair of dark fibers are directly taught in the same transceiver-connected cable technology.
For the newly emphasized requirement that the first optical transceiver optically couples the first dark fiber to the second dark fiber to form the first loop, Magri expressly teaches a transceiver-side optical interface that joins the first and second fibers into a return path.
Magri states: “Each interface 121, 131 is, or comprises, one or more respective optical transceivers.” [Magri, ¶ [0041]].
In the loopback state, Magri further states: “As shown in FIG. 3b, when the optical switch is in the second configuration the optical switch connects (or provides an optical signal path between) the first optical fiber 242 and the second optical fiber 244. In this way the optical switch in the second configuration may pass optical signals 125 received at the remote node 130 along the first optical fiber 242, away from the remote node 130 along the second optical fiber 244. In effect, in the second configuration, the optical switch 132 may provide a loopback of optical signals 125 received at the remote node 130.” [Magri, ¶ [0068]].
Magri further states: “the optical switch 132 may be integrated into the remote optical interface unit 131.” [Magri, ¶ [0087]].
This directly teaches that the fiber-to-fiber coupling element may be part of the transceiver-side optical interface, rather than an unrelated remote test plug.
Jiang provides additional structural confirmation by expressly placing an optical switching module inside an optical transceiver device. In bypass mode, the switch redirects the optical input channel to the optical output channel, and Jiang expressly describes “loop back detection for self-inspection.” [Jiang, ¶¶ [0049], [0052]].
Jiang also teaches an MPO optical transceiving port coupled to the optical switches. [Jiang, ¶ [0053]].
These teachings reinforce that the claimed first-transceiver-side coupling is a known transceiver-integrated optical function.
The source/detector continuity-validation function on unused fibers is expressly taught by Archambault: “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 connected to a second port. Continuity of a connection between the first port and the second port is validated when the test light is received at the first photo-detector.” [Archambault, ¶ [0016]].
Archambault specifically applies that loopback technique to dark fibers and states: “In this example, the WSS module on degree 1 is sending a signal from Demux port 5 and detecting that same signal at Mux port 5, after it loops back through the FIM. This ensures that the dark fibers that will be used at a later date to provision a new MCS have continuity and sufficiently low losses.” [Archambault, ¶ [0043]].
Finally, Takeuchi supplies the claimed panel-side light-source, light-detection, and indication architecture.
Takeuchi teaches a light source conveying optical signals from the panel, a microcontroller capable of controlling the source, photodiodes that receive the optical signal, and an electrical indication of confirmed optical connectivity. [Takeuchi, ¶¶ [0102], [0106], [0109]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
The combination uses the otherwise-unused fibers already present in the Mudd MPO cable as a non-service-affecting validation channel, uses Magri’s known transceiver-side fiber-to-fiber return connection to form the loop, uses Jiang’s known transceiver-integrated optical switching to implement that return function within the MPO-capable transceiver-side device, uses Archambault’s express dark-fiber validation purpose and test-light technique, and uses Takeuchi’s intelligent panel hardware to launch, detect, and indicate the returned light.
The arrangement would have produced the predictable benefit of allowing the patch panel itself to verify that the cable is actually mated to the transceiver while leaving active data fibers untouched. Thus, every structural and functional limitation of claim 16 is taught or rendered obvious by the cited combination, and claim 16 would have been obvious.
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 16 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, 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.
However, within analogous art, Takeuchi expressly teaches a first and second optical connection identification assembly connected by intermediate optical fiber 203 and further teaches that received optical signals generate an indication of connectivity between the two assemblies. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0097], ¶ [0109]].
The second assembly therefore supplies the second-side detection/indication architecture, while the intermediate optical fiber supplies the connection between the two identification assemblies. For the reasons discussed for claim 10, applying Takeuchi’s linked identification assemblies at respective patch-panel interfaces would have provided the recited panel-to-panel indication path without changing the disclosed connectivity-detection principle.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the second indication element recited by claim 19 because a patch panel used in a segmented network must often distinguish whether continuity exists only to the local transceiver or also through the onward panel-to-panel segment. Providing an independent indication for the second segment uses the same known detector/indicator architecture already taught by Takeuchi and yields the predictable diagnostic benefit of fault isolation at the panel.
Claim 19 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 21 further specifies the precise direction of test-light propagation: light is supplied to the first dark fiber at the second end, travels to the first end, is directed from the first dark fiber to the second dark fiber by the first optical transceiver at the first end, and then returns through the second dark fiber to the second end.
That out-and-back topology is expressly taught by Magri.
Magri states: “At a step 620 the main node 120 transmits an optical signal 125 towards the remote node 130 via the first optical fiber 242 of the fiber optic line 140.” [Magri, ¶ [0094]].
Magri further teaches that the remote-side loopback switch passes the signal from the first fiber to the second fiber and that the signal returns to the originating side. [Magri, ¶ [0068], ¶ [0090]].
The specific remote-side redirection is stated cleanly in Magri’s ¶ [0068]: “As shown in FIG. 3b, when the optical switch is in the second configuration the optical switch connects (or provides an optical signal path between) the first optical fiber 242 and the second optical fiber 244. In this way the optical switch in the second configuration may pass optical signals 125 received at the remote node 130 along the first optical fiber 242, away from the remote node 130 along the second optical fiber 244.” [Magri, ¶ [0068]].
For claim-mapping purposes, the originating/main-node side corresponds to the claimed second end at the patch panel, while the remote optical-interface/transceiver side corresponds to the claimed first end.
With that orientation, Magri expressly teaches light traveling from the second end to the first end on the first fiber, being redirected at the transceiver-side first end, and returning from the first end to the second end on the second fiber.
This is the same directional sequence recited in claim 21.
Mudd supplies the fact that the selected fibers may be the dark fibers of the claimed transceiver-connected MPO cable, expressly teaching four dark fibers in the same patch cord with four transmit and four receive fibers. [Mudd, ¶ [0031]].
Archambault provides the reason to use those dark fibers for this returned test light, expressly teaching that detecting the same test signal after loopback verifies dark-fiber continuity. [Archambault, ¶ [0043]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Magri’s exact first-fiber/outbound, remote-coupling, second-fiber/return sequence on a selected pair of Mudd’s dark fibers because Archambault explicitly identifies unused/dark MPO fibers as appropriate fibers to validate without interfering with active traffic. This substitution merely changes which available fibers carry the test signal, not the loopback principle itself. The result would be predictable: test light launched at the patch-panel side traverses the first dark fiber, is looped at the transceiver-side interface into the second dark fiber, returns to the panel side, and is detected as evidence that the transceiver-to-panel optical path is intact.
Claim 21 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 22 additionally requires that the first optical communication medium is a cable in which the first dark fiber, the second dark fiber, the at least one transmit fiber, and the at least one receive fiber are disposed.
However, within analogous art, Mudd expressly discloses exactly such a cable composition. Mudd states: “The first, second and third patch cords 121, 123 and 125 have four transmit fibers, four receive fibers and four dark fibers, as did the trunk cable 35 of FIG. 4.” [Mudd, ¶ [0031]].
Mudd additionally discloses that the trunk cable is a multi-fiber cable having twelve optical fibers and respective connector plugs at opposite ends. [Mudd, ¶ [0007]].
Thus, the additional limitation is not merely suggested but expressly present in Mudd: active transmit fibers, active receive fibers, and multiple dark fibers are physically disposed together in the same cable.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to separate the test fibers into a different cable because using the already-installed dark fibers reduces cable count, preserves active-channel capacity, and permits continuity testing through the same physical cable whose mating is being verified.
Claim 22 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 2, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, and Archambault et al., and further in view of Molex MPO Fiber Optic Loopback Assemblies (2019).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 2 additionally requires a first computing device or first networking switch having one or more connections, with a first connection configured to be connected with the first optical transceiver.
However, within analogous art, Molex expressly places QSFP optical transceivers in the claimed host/network environment.
Molex states: “For compact testing of QSFP optical transceivers or network optical links, Molex’s MPO Loopback Assemblies offer a new, robust solution for Telecom and Datacom applications.” [Molex, p. 1].
Molex further states: “The Loopback also 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, p. 1].
The same datasheet expressly identifies the intended applications as “Loopback testing for network cards” and “Testing on QSFP Modules.” [Molex, p. 1].
Molex further explains the end-to-end test purpose: “Loopbacks are used primarily as a means to test optical links in networks or devices by ‘looping back’ the connections from the TX (transmit) pairs to the RX (receive) pairs. By doing this, a complete optical link is formed, allowing the optical performance evaluation of a discrete component or a complete link in a network path covering one or more interfaces.” [Molex, p. 1].
Molex does not itself define the internal host circuitry of the network card. However, by expressly identifying “Loopback testing for network cards” and direct mating to a QSFP transceiver, Molex places the QSFP transceiver at the host/network interface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a pluggable transceiver is connected through a corresponding host-side transceiver port or connection of the network card or networking equipment. [Molex, p. 1].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the first optical transceiver of the base combination to a computing device or networking switch because that is the ordinary operating environment for QSFP and similar pluggable optical transceivers. Doing so does not alter the dark-fiber loop or patch-panel indicator; it simply places the transceiver in the host equipment for which such transceivers are designed. The expected result is a conventional host-to-transceiver-to-optical-link architecture with the added panel-side continuity indication taught by the base references.
Claim 2 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, Archambault, and Molex as discussed above, except wherein claim 3 additionally requires the first connection indication element to indicate the presence of the optical path between the first computing device or networking switch and the first patch panel when the first optical transceiver is optically coupled with the patch panel via the communication medium.
Molex identifies its MPO loopback as a tool for testing both “QSFP optical transceivers or network optical links” and specifically for “Loopback testing for network cards.” Molex additionally explains that loopback forms “a complete optical link” permitting evaluation of “a complete link in a network path covering one or more interfaces.” [Molex, p. 1].
Thus, the host-side network-card environment, the QSFP transceiver, and the optical link are expressly treated together as a testable network path.
Takeuchi teaches the panel-side indicator that reports detected optical connectivity, while Magri and Archambault teach that successful return of the supplied test light establishes continuity of the intervening optical line.
Once the computing device/network switch is connected to the transceiver as taught by Molex, successful dark-fiber return through the transceiver-to-panel medium demonstrates that the optical portion of the host-to-panel connection is present.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the same panel-local indication to report that broader host-to-panel state because doing so gives the installer a single visual confirmation that the host-side transceiver is connected through the cable to the panel. That interpretation requires no new optical hardware and is the predictable system-level use of the same continuity information.
Claim 3 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 16 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 20 additionally requires that the first optical transceiver is connected with a first computing device or networking switch such that the first connection indication element further indicates the presence of the optical path between the computing device/network switch and the first panel port.
For the host-side connection, Molex expressly teaches direct mating to a QSFP optical transceiver and identifies “Loopback testing for network cards” as an intended application. Molex further explains that the loopback can form “a complete optical link” covering one or more interfaces. [Molex, p. 1].
For the panel-side result, Takeuchi teaches a patch-panel indicator that indicates detected optical connectivity, and Magri teaches determining line continuity from successful return of a signal through the first/second-fiber loopback.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the panel indicator to represent the presence of the broader computing-device-to-panel optical path once the transceiver is installed in its ordinary host equipment. The host connection is a conventional upstream extension of the same transceiver whose cable continuity is being tested; therefore, no change to the loopback or sensing principle is required. The resulting system provides a practical installation benefit by allowing a technician at the panel to verify the connected host path without accessing the host rack.
Claim 20 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, and Archambault et al., and further in view of Rapipong et al. (US 2017/0141846 A1).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 6 additionally requires the first patch panel to include a first light source coupled to the first dark-fiber loop, a first light detection device coupled to the loop, and a first microcontroller communicably coupled with the source and detector and configured to determine the presence of the optical path.
The source/detector portion is already taught by Takeuchi and Archambault.
Takeuchi teaches a panel-local light source and photodiodes and states that a microcontroller may manage the input signals controlling the optical signals emitted from the light source. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0102]].
Archambault teaches validating continuity by controlling a light source to emit test light, detecting the light with a photodetector, and validating continuity when the test light is received. [Archambault, ¶ [0016]; ¶¶ [0029]-[0032]].
Rapipong expressly supplies a monitored patch-panel microcontroller coupled to optical detection hardware.
Rapipong discloses: “Each photodiode 116 and 118 is connected to a transimpedance amplifier 120 (only one shown for simplicity) to amplify the photodiode signal. A data acquisition device 122 receives the amplified signal from the transimpedance amplifier 120 and converts that from an analog signal to a digital signal that can be recorded by a microcontroller 124.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0015], publication p. 2].
Rapipong further states: “The microcontroller 124 is configured to capture, store and transmit data for each of the 96 ports to the unit controller 102.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0016], publication p. 2].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the controller architecture of Rapipong with the light-source/detector architecture of Takeuchi because both references are directed to intelligent or monitored fiber-optic patch panels.
Takeuchi already teaches controller management of the test source; Rapipong teaches receiving photodiode-derived measurements at a microcontroller. Bringing those known controller connections together in one panel-local continuity engine would predictably allow the microcontroller to initiate the test, receive the detector result, and determine whether the path is present.
The combination reduces manual testing and is precisely the automation objective of both references.
Claim 6 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 6 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, Archambault, and Rapipong as discussed above, except wherein claim 7 additionally requires the microcontroller to cause the first light source to emit light into the first pair of dark fibers and to cause the 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 teaches controller control of the source: “a microcontroller, such as microcontroller 140 may manage input signals that control the optical signals emitted from light source 227.” [Takeuchi, ¶ [0102]].
Rapipong teaches that photodiode output is stored and evaluated and then used to drive a connection-status indication. In the FIG. 4 process, Rapipong determines whether a cable is connected based on the measured optical power and, if present, illuminates a status indicator. [Rapipong, ¶ [0020], FIG. 4].
Rapipong specifically discloses the response state: “if an optical fiber cable is present, a status indicator can be illuminated to visually communicate the connection status to a user. For example, a tri-color LED can be activated to illuminate green in order to indicate a connection is present and/or that there is a good connection.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0020]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to program the same microcontroller that initiates the test-light emission to evaluate the returned detector signal and command the panel indicator because centralizing those three operations avoids unnecessary duplicated control circuitry and ensures that the indication corresponds to the particular test just initiated. This is a straightforward automation of Archambault’s launch-and-detect continuity procedure using the intelligent-panel controller arrangements of Takeuchi and Rapipong.
The result is predictable and directly yields the operational sequence recited in claim 7.
Claim 7 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 8 additionally requires a first indication state associated with absence of the optical path and a second indication state associated with presence of the optical path.
Rapipong expressly teaches the two claimed states in a monitored fiber-optic patch panel. Rapipong discloses a tri-color LED and states that it indicates cable/optical-fiber status. [Rapipong, ¶ [0017]].
In the connection-monitoring process, Rapipong states: “a tri-color LED can be activated to illuminate green in order to indicate a connection is present and/or that there is a good connection.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0020]].
Rapipong further states: “if an optical fiber cable is not present, the tri-color LED can be activated to illuminate red in order to indicate a connection is not present and/or that there is a weak connection.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0020]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use different visual states for absent and present continuity because a binary or multicolor indicator is the most direct way to communicate the detector result at the patch panel.
Applying Rapipong’s red/green status convention to the dark-fiber continuity result of the base combination would immediately tell the technician whether the transceiver-to-panel optical path has failed or is present. This is a predictable presentation of the already-known detection result and requires no modification to the optical test path. Claim 8 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 16 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 17 adds a first microcontroller communicably coupled with the first light source and first light detection device and configured to determine the presence of the optical path between the first optical transceiver and first panel port.
As discussed for claim 6, Takeuchi teaches microcontroller control of the panel light source and detection circuitry associated with panel optical connectivity [Takeuchi, ¶ [0102]], while Rapipong teaches photodiodes whose outputs are converted by a data-acquisition device and recorded by microcontroller 124. [Rapipong, ¶¶ [0015]-[0016]].
Rapipong additionally teaches that the monitored patch panel uses the measured photodiode power to identify whether an optical fiber connection is present, and stores that measured level in the microcontroller. [Rapipong, ¶ [0020]].
This is the claimed controller-based determination of path presence when applied to the returned dark-fiber test signal supplied by the base combination.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Rapipong’s microcontroller-based decision logic into Takeuchi’s patch-panel source/detector assembly because the detector output is already electrical data suitable for microcontroller processing and the controller already participates in panel monitoring. The predictable result is a panel that automatically determines whether the returned test light proves continuity to the transceiver and then reports that state, eliminating a separate external test instrument.
Claim 17 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 16 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 18 additionally requires the connection indication element to display a first state for absence of the path and a second state for presence of the path.
Rapipong directly teaches those two states in the patch-panel context: “a tri-color LED can be activated to illuminate green in order to indicate a connection is present and/or that there is a good connection,” and “the tri-color LED can be activated to illuminate red in order to indicate a connection is not present and/or that there is a weak connection.” [Rapipong, ¶ [0020], FIG. 4].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the red/green absent/present indication of Rapipong for the first connection indication element of claim 16 because the underlying continuity determination already has two principal outcomes: returned test light detected or not detected. Mapping those outcomes to two visual states gives immediate, unambiguous feedback and is a standard, predictable human-machine interface choice for monitored patch panels.
Claim 18 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, and Archambault et al., and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2010/0014824 A1).
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 11 additionally requires a second pair of dark fibers forming a second optical loop, where 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 already provides enough unused/dark fibers for more than one pair, expressly teaching four dark fibers in the same transceiver-side MPO patch cord. [Mudd, ¶ [0031]].
Lu expressly teaches multiple loopback paths in a multifiber connector. The Abstract states: “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, Abstract].
Lu further teaches the underlying continuity method: “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].
Thus, once multiple unused fibers are available, the use of more than one fiber pair as separate return loops is expressly known.
Takeuchi supplies the inter-panel segment by teaching first and second optical connection identification assemblies connected by intermediate optical fiber 203 [Takeuchi, ¶ [0097]], while Archambault expressly teaches using unused/dark fibers and loopback validation to verify different optical connection segments. [Archambault, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allocate a second pair of the four available dark fibers to a second loop for panel-to-panel validation because the first loop verifies the local transceiver-to-panel segment while the second loop independently verifies the onward inter-panel segment.
Lu expressly demonstrates first and second loopback paths, and Archambault demonstrates the diagnostic value of loopback testing on unused fibers.
Using two available dark-fiber pairs for two different path segments provides predictable fault-isolation granularity and leaves the live Tx/Rx fibers unaffected.
Claim 11 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, and Archambault et al., and further in view of Kewitsch (US 2012/0321255 A1).
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, and Archambault as discussed above, except wherein claim 12 additionally requires a second optical transceiver, a second optical communication medium, a second patch panel having a panel port connected to the second medium, a third connection indication element for the second transceiver-to-second-panel path, and a jumper cable optically connecting the first and second patch panels.
The two-ended transceiver architecture is expressly taught by Mudd.
Mudd discloses: “As illustrated, a multi-fiber trunk cable 35, having twelve optical fibers therein, is used to connect the first fiber optic transceiver 31 to the second fiber optic transceiver 33. A first female MPO connector plug 37 at a first end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a first male MPO port 39 of the first fiber optic transceiver 31. A second female MPO connector plug 41 at a second end of the trunk cable 35 is provided for mating with a second male MPO port 43 of the second fiber optic transceiver 33.” [Mudd, ¶ [0007]].
Thus, adding a second transceiver and corresponding second communication medium is a conventional mirror of the first-side architecture.
Takeuchi supplies a paired optical-connection-identification architecture for the panel-side mapping, while Kewitsch confirms the conventional patch-panel/patch-cord environment.
Takeuchi discloses first optical connection identification assembly 201 and second optical connection identification assembly 202 optically connected by intermediate optical fiber 203, with optical signals traveling in both directions between them. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0097]].
Takeuchi further discloses source/detector/indication functionality at multiple assemblies, including electrical signaling to indicate optical connectivity between directly adjacent assemblies. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0106], ¶ [0109]].
For the expressly-recited jumper cable between patch panels, Kewitsch confirms the conventional use of patch cords at fiber-optic patch panels.
Kewitsch states: “Fiber optic patch-panels are used to terminate large numbers of optical fibers in an array of connectors mounted on modular plates, thereby providing a location to manually interconnect patch cords for their routing to adjacent circuits.” [Kewitsch, ¶ [0004]].
Taken together, Takeuchi’s disclosure that its optical connection identification system may be in the form of a patch panel and that first and second identification assemblies are optically linked by an intermediate fiber [Takeuchi, ¶¶ [0095], [0097]], combined with Kewitsch’s conventional use of patch cords at fiber-optic patch panels, renders the recited first/second patch-panel and jumper-cable arrangement a predictable application of known panel-side hardware. The intermediate optical fiber/cable between the two panel-side assemblies would therefore predictably be implemented as the conventional patch/jumper cord taught by Kewitsch [Kewitsch, ¶ [0004]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to duplicate the first-side transceiver/medium/panel indicator arrangement at the opposite end because two-ended optical communication links ordinarily have corresponding endpoint hardware and because local continuity information is useful at each end.
Connecting the first and second patch panels with a conventional jumper/patch cable is the ordinary means by which segmented panel architectures are completed. The resulting system permits independent verification of each transceiver-to-panel segment and the inter-panel segment and is a predictable symmetrical extension of the known architecture.
Claim 12 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, Archambault et al., and Kewitsch , and further in view of Molex.
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 12 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, Archambault, and Kewitsch as discussed above, except wherein claim 13 additionally requires a second computing device or second networking switch having a connection configured to be connected with the second optical transceiver.
As discussed for claim 2, Molex expressly places QSFP optical transceivers in a host/network-card environment and identifies “Loopback testing for network cards” and “Testing on QSFP Modules” as intended applications. [Molex, p. 1].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the same ordinary host connection to the second optical transceiver because claim 12 already establishes a symmetrical second endpoint. There is no technical reason to place the first transceiver in a host networking device but leave the second transceiver without its corresponding host; doing so at both ends yields the expected two-ended computing/network link.
Claim 13 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. in view of Mudd et al., further in view of Magri et al., Jiang, Archambault et al., and Kewitsch, and further in view of Lu et al.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 12 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, Archambault, and Kewitsch as discussed above, except wherein claim 14 additionally requires active transmit/receive fibers, a first pair of dark fibers forming a first optical loop associated with the first patch-panel-to-first-transceiver path, and a second pair of dark fibers forming a second optical loop associated with determination of the path between the first and second optical transceivers.
Mudd expressly teaches a cable having four transmit fibers, four receive fibers, and four dark fibers. [Mudd, ¶ [0031]].
Thus, after assigning one dark-fiber pair to the first local continuity loop, another dark-fiber pair remains physically available for a second loop.
Lu expressly teaches “first and second optical loop back paths” aligned to fibers in a multifiber optical cable. [Lu, Abstract].
For the end-to-end transceiver-side return topology, Magri teaches that a remote optical interface comprising an optical transceiver can optically connect the first fiber to the second fiber so that the signal travels back toward the originating side. [Magri, ¶ [0041], ¶ [0068], ¶ [0087]].
Archambault expressly teaches that dark fibers may be continuity-tested using loopback and that successful receipt of the same signal after loopback verifies the path. [Archambault, ¶ [0043]].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the second available dark-fiber pair for an end-to-end or farther-segment loop between the first and second transceiver sides because this provides a different diagnostic scope from the local first-panel-to-first-transceiver loop.
Lu establishes that multiple loopback paths are known in a multifiber interface; Mudd provides the multiple dark fibers to implement them; and Magri provides the transceiver-side fiber-to-fiber return mechanism. The second loop allows a technician to distinguish a local cable fault from a farther end-to-end fault while preserving live traffic.
The result is a predictable application of known loopback techniques to a second pair of available fibers.
Claim 14 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 14 are taught or rendered obvious by Takeuchi, Mudd, Magri, Jiang, Archambault, Kewitsch, and Lu as discussed above, except wherein claim 15 additionally requires a second connection indication element of the first patch panel configured to indicate the path between the first patch panel and second optical transceiver, and a fourth connection indication element of the second patch panel configured to indicate the path between the second patch panel and first optical transceiver.
Takeuchi expressly teaches multiple connected optical connection identification assemblies, each having optical sensing/indication hardware, and teaches indicating connectivity between adjacent assemblies in both directions.
In FIG. 8A, light emitted from one assembly is detected at the other and an electrical signal is generated to indicate optical connectivity; the reciprocal source/detector arrangement is also disclosed. [Takeuchi, ¶ [0109]].
Once the claim-14 system includes two patch panels, two transceiver endpoints, and two loopback paths, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide cross-link indication at both panels so that either technician location can determine whether the farther transceiver path is intact. This merely duplicates the known panel-local indication function of Takeuchi at the two already-existing panels and associates each indication with the corresponding end-to-end continuity result.
The symmetrical indicators improve fault isolation and maintenance without changing the optical path or loopback mechanism.
Claim 15 would therefore have been obvious.
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
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