DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0018] of the published application has an error message and what appears to be words in Portuguese.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should read “each of the MPM-BOSAs”, plural. In addition, the claim spells out the words for GPON and XGS-PON which is unnecessary since claim 1 already defined the short hand for them. Furthermore, an indefinite article is needed before “XGS-PON upstream wavelength”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “elements” in line 4 appears to be redundant.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim has “forty pins” plural wherein the previous recitation in claim 1 referred to it as “forty pin”, singular.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: two SC MPM-BOSA support” should be “supports”, plural.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing means” and “connection means” in claim 1.
When looking to the Specification of the published application, paragraph [0091] gives the structure “connection means” as printed circuit boards while “processing means” does not appear to be described.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“memory means” in claim 3.
“Memory” in this instance is a structural modifier for “means” and therefore the limitation not invoke 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the preamble of the claim recites “A dual small form-factor pluggable double-density multiple passive optical network module - DSFPDD-MPM optical module projected to be incorporated in a…” (emphasis added) and then recites a case “projected to house…” (emphasis added) and then goes on in both instances to list other devices. However, “projected” is unclear because the word usually refers something that is to happen in the future. Therefore, one or ordinary skill in the art would not readily know if the meets and bounds of claim 1 would include the other devices listed (i.e. does the module actually include these other devices). It appears that the only definitive limitation in the module is a case that can house dual units, a controller, and a pin interface as the rest is intended use due to the “projected” language and the devices recited do not have specific structures relevant for a case (i.e. there are no standard dimensions or housing for a BOSA). Further regarding claim 1, the preamble of the claim recites “ten-gigabit passive optical network line terminal - XGS-PON-OLT”. However, XGS-PON is well-known in the art to be shorthand for a ten-gigabit symmetric passive optical network, which has a different upstream transmission speed than that of a standard ten-gigabit passive optical network. Therefore, there is confusion as to which is meant in the claims since the word “symmetric” is not present (the same issue exists in claim 2).
Claim limitation “processing means” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
When looking to the Specification of the published application, the term “processing means” is only repeated once in paragraph [0088] while no description is given of it. While paragraph [0091] goes on to more fully describe the claimed “control unit”, nothing in the paragraph could be reasonable construed as one of ordinary skill in the art as being processing means aside from the microcontroller, but this is recited in claim 1 as a separate limitation. Furthermore, nothing in the Figures appears to show the claimed “processing means”.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-17 do not cure claim 1 of these issues and are similarly rejected. Furthermore, since some claims only limit structure “projected to” be included in the module and case, it appears that the broadest reasonable interpretation of them is likewise a case as above with claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lasers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Dependent claim 4 does not cure claim 3 of this issue, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the connection” and “the respective laser driver and limiting amplifier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there are multiple of each for both BOSAs.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the SFP-DD transceiver host’s cage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Dependent claim 12 does not cure claim 11 of this issue, and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated above, claim 1 contains a “processing unit” that invokes 112(f). However, the Specification does not recite any structure for this element and it is not present in the Figures. Therefore, there is a lack of sufficient written description for this element in the application. Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0140909 in view of Kuang et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0248534.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a dual small form-factor pluggable double-density multiple passive optical network module - DSFPDD-MPM optical module projected to be incorporated in a small form-factor double density - SFP - DD transceiver host of a multiple passive optical network line - MPM-PON-OLT, ten-gigabit passive optical network line terminal - XGS-PON-OLT, two-point-five gigabit passive optical network line terminal - GPON-OLT (see Lee Figure 1, OLT a transceiver connected to an XGS-PON ONT and G-PON ONT and paragraph [0029], “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a combo OLT PON architecture of the related art that simultaneously supports an XGS-PON transmission standard and a G-PON transmission standard…The OLT of FIG. 1 shows a concept of outputting two electrical signals through one optical transceiver. Generally, an SFP or SFP+ optical transceiver outputs an electrical signal through one input/output (I/O) terminal that is a default output terminal”) characterized by comprising:
- a case (this is implied by the transceivers of Figure 1 being SFP or SFP+. A pluggable unit would need a housing to be plugged into) projected to house:
- two multiple passive optical network modules-bidirectional optical subassemublies - MPM-BOSAs – wherein each MPM-BOSA is configured to provide connection to an XGS-PON and GPON OLT (see Figure 1, top two transceivers of the OLT each connected to an XGS-PON ONT and G-PON ONT); each BOSA comprises an SC ferrule adapted to provide connection to an SC optical fiber connector (see Figure 1, ports 1 and 2 and paragraph [0032], “An optical cable with an LC optical connector may be inserted into the first optical transceiver, and one of optical signals of two standards may be transmitted or both the optical signals may be simultaneously transmitted through the optical cable”);
- connection means, adapted to provide connection to the MPM-BOSAs, (see paragraph [0018]).
Lee does not expressively teach
- a control unit comprising [the] connection means and a microcontroller comprising processing means configured to control an operation of the MPM-BOSAs; and
- a forty-pin high-speed electrical interface - HSEI - adapted to provide a connection between the microcontroller and an SFP double density transceiver host where the DSFPDD-MPM is incorporated.
However, Kuang in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system (see Kuang Figure 2) comprising an MPM-BOSA configured to provide connection for a GPON and XG-PON OLT (see Figure 5 which is an embodiment of the OLT of Figure 1 sending and receiving two types of signals and paragraph [0028]) and connections adapted to provide connection to the MPM-BOSAs (see paragraph [0053]) as taught in Lee comprising
- a control unit comprising [the] connections and a microcontroller comprising processing means configured to control an operation of the MPM-BOSAs (see paragraph Figure 5, microcontroller and [0053]); and
- a multi-pin high-speed electrical interface - HSEI - adapted to provide a connection between the microcontroller and an SFP transceiver host where the system is incorporated (see Figure 5, electric connector connected to microcontroller and paragraph [0055]. A host is implied for such pluggable transceivers).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of a control unit and pin HSEI for a dual OLT as taught in Kuang with the system taught in Lee, the motivation being to allow direct and quick control via the host and microcontroller to the various devices.
Lee in view of Kuang does not expressively teach that the multi-pin HSEI is a forty-pin HSEI. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the multi-pin HSEI of Lee in view of Kuang with the claimed HSEI to yield the predictable results of successfully transferring signals between the SFP transceivers and host.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the forty pins HSEI is configured to provide connection to the SFP-DD transceiver host where the DSFPDD-MPM is incorporated employing a connector (see Kuang Figure 5, electric connector).
Lee in view of Kuang does not expressively teach wherein the connector is a port connector. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the connector of Lee in view of Kuang with the claimed port connector to yield the predictable results of successfully transferring signals between the SFP transceivers and host.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and but does not expressively teach wherein the size of the case is standardized to fit within a receptacle cage of an SFP-DD transceiver host.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to have the case of Lee in view of Kuang fit a receptacle case of such a host to ensure that it is usable with different SFPs thereby making it easy to replace them.
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches an SFP-DD transceiver host comprising at least one DSFPDD- MPM optical module according to claim 1 (as noted above, this is implied in Kuang and also in Lee as pluggable devices need a host to function).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches a XGS-PON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 14 (see Lee Figure 1 and Kuang Figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches a GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 14 (see Lee Figure 1 and Kuang Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches a Multi-PON OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 14 (see Lee Figure 1 and Kuang Figure 5).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0140909 in view of Kuang et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0248534 and Songlin et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0294774.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the MPM-BOSA comprises two lasers, adapted to operate at the ten- gigabit passive optical network - XGS-PON, and the two-point-five gigabit passive optical network - GPON, at [[the]] respectively downstream wavelengths at 9.95 Gbit/s and 2.48 Gbit/s (see Kuang Figure 5, 10G laser and 2.5G laser and paragraphs [0039] and [0045]), one burst mode receiver adapted to operate at XGS-PON upstream wavelength 2.48 Gbit/s and a burst mode receiver adapted to operate at 1.24 Gbit/s GPON upstream wavelength (see Kuang Figure 5, 2.5G burst circuitry and 1.25G burst circuitry).
Lee in view of Kuang does not expressively teach one dual rate burst mode receiver adapted to operate at XGS-PON upstream wavelength 9.95Gbit/s, and 2.48 Gbit/s.
However, Songlin in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a PON device to receive data at multiple different rates (see Songlin Figure 3 and paragraph [0066]) comprising two burst mode receivers operating on different wavelengths (see Figure 4, 1270nm PD and 1577nm PD) as taught in Lee in view of Kuang comprising
one dual rate burst mode receiver adapted to operate at XGS-PON wavelength of 2.48 Git/s and another rate (see Figure 3, top optical burst mode receiver at 2.5G and 5G).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of a PON device receiving data at 3 different rates via a dual rate burst mode receiver as taught in Songlin with the system taught in Lee in view of Kuang, the motivation being to increase the versatility of the device via the adaptability to handle such rates.
Lee in view of Kuang and Songlin does not expressively teach the one dual rate burst mode receiver adapted to operate at XGS-PON upstream wavelength 9.95Gbit/s. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to have the rates for the upstream signals taught in Lee in view of Kuang and Songlin to be as claimed due to system demands.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the control unit comprises:
- a modulation sub-unit including four laser drivers and limiting amplifiers elements, adapted to drive and modulate the lasers and to amplify electrical from two single burst mode receivers of the MPM-BOSAs signals (see Kuang Figure 5, 10G and 2.5G laser drive units and 2.5 and 1.25 burst limiting amplifiers as applied to Lee Figure 1); and
wherein, the microcontroller is further configured to control the operation of the modulation sub-unit (see Kuang paragraph [0053]).
Lee in view of Kuang does not expressively teach a dual-rate burst mode receiver.
However, Songlin in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a PON device to receive data at multiple different rates (see Songlin Figure 3 and paragraph [0066]) comprising two burst mode receivers operating on different wavelengths (see Figure 4, 1270nm PD and 1577 PD) as taught in Lee in view of Kuang comprising
a dual-rate burst mode receiver. (see Figure 3, top optical burst mode receiver at 2.5G and 5G).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of a PON device receiving data at 3 different rates via a dual rate burst mode receiver as taught in Songlin with the system taught in Lee in view of Kuang, the motivation being to increase the versatility of the device via the adaptability to handle such rates.
Regarding claim 4¸ Lee in view of Kuang and Songlin teaches all the limitations of claim 3, but does not expressively teach wherein the connection between each MPM-BOSA and the respective laser driver and limiting amplifier of each modulation sub-unit is provided through flex printed circuit board.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the connections of Lee in view of Kuang and Songlin with those claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully coupling electrical signals between elements.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0140909 in view of Kuang et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0248534 and Stagg et al, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0264825.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 5, but does not expressively teach wherein the port connector is comprised by a plurality of pins, and wherein the microcontroller further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select the pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map.
However, Stagg in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a port connector controlled by a microcontroller (see Stagg paragraph [0005]) as taught in Lee in view of Kuang wherein
the port connector is comprised by a plurality of pins (see paragraph [0005]), and a memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select the pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map (see paragraph [0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of controlling pins via a mapping in a memory as taught in Stagg with the system taught in Lee in view of Kuang, the motivation being to have a dynamic configuration that is able to interface with different devices.
Lee in view of Kuang and Stagg does not expressively teach that the memory means is comprised in the microcontroller. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to store such a configuration in a memory associated with the microcontroller to allow it to be referenced and updated in the future.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Kuang and Stagg teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the port connector is comprised of forty pins (this would naturally follow for a 40 pin interface).
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0140909 in view of Kuang et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0248534 and Webman et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,692,511.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Kuang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the case comprises the following parts: two SC MPM-BOSA support and a case spacer to accommodate the installation of the two MPM-BOSA.
However, Webman in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising two BOSAs within a case (see Webman Figure 7 and column 12, “With reference to FIG. 7, one embodiment of the transceiver depicted in FIGS. 4-6 is shown. In the depicted embodiment, a simplex design of the transceiver 26A is shown, having two datalinks established over four bundles of cable 29. In the simplex design, each pair 90, 92 of bundles 29 represents a transmit/receive pair, in which one of the bundles 29 transmits with a transducer array (e.g., VCSELs) in a single direction to a receiving connector, and a second bundle 29 receives transmitted signals with a photodiode or other receiving element. In the depicted embodiment, the first datalink is sent and received over the first bundle pair 90, and the second datalink is sent and received over the second bundle pair 92. In the embodiments of FIGS. 4-7, the AOC uses four channels to transmit two datalinks, leaving each datalink with two corresponding channels for providing redundancy and improving bandwidth”) as taught in Lee in view of Kuang wherein
two BOSA support and a case spacer to accommodate the installation of the two BOSA (see Figure 7, support at the ends of pairs 90 and 92 and the space between them).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of supports and spacers for BOSAs as taught in Weber with the system taught in Lee in view of Kuang, the motivation being to minimize the change of crosstalk between the separate BOSAs.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Kuang and Webman teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but does not expressively teach wherein the MPM SC BOSA support is made from a plastic material.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to make a support out of plastic as claimed in order to help insulate the electrical signal in the system.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Kuang and Webman teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but does not expressively teach wherein the elements of the case are made from metal.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to make various elements of the case out of metal based on system requirements and cost.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Kuang and Webman teaches all the limitations of claim 11, but does not expressively teach wherein the case is made from zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3, or aluminum.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to make the case out of specific metals based on system requirements and cost.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0140909 in view of Kuang et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0248534; Webman et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,692,511 and Larson, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0157474.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Kuang and Webman teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the case further comprises the following parts:
a bottom and a top part (see Webman Figure 7 which shows the case comprising a bottom part and opposite to the bottom part is the top part);
- a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the DDSFPDD-MPM module (see Webman Figure 7, pull tab 25).
Lee in view of Kuang and Webman does not expressively teach one actuator tine adapted to allow extraction of the optical module from the SFP-DD transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated.
However, Larson in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising an SFP module (see Larson Abstract) and further teaches
a host cage for an SFP transceiver module (see Abstract); and
one actuator tine adapted to allow extraction of the optical module from
the SFP transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated (see Figure 4, actuator tine 30 and paragraph [0032).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of an actuator tine as taught in Larson with the system taught in Lee in view of Kuang and Webman, the motivation being to allow ease of removal from such a cage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights