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 2024-06-21 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 1-19 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the description of Figure 2 includes the phrase "Erro! A origem da referencia nao foi encontrada." This appears to be an unresolved foreign-language word-processing or cross-reference error within the English-language specification. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitation within claim 9 is not shown within the drawings, namely that the microcontroller "further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector" and is "further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map." Figure 3 illustrates a fixed forty-pin assignment table, but the drawings do not identify a memory means, do not show a memory pin map, and do not show how the microcontroller selects a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on such a memory pin map. Further, Figures 1 and 2 show the control unit and microcontroller generally, but do not show the claimed memory means or selectable pin-function arrangement. These feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an
application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the originally filed specification, including the drawings, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the presently claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites ("wherein the port connector is comprised by a plurality of pins, and wherein a microcontroller further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory
pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map; optionally, the port connector is comprised of forty pins.")
The originally filed specification describes the forty-pin high speed electrical interface and provides a fixed contact assignment for the forty pins in Figure 3. The detailed description further explains a particular embodiment in which pin 9 is used to both disable the GPON and XGS-PON lasers transmission and to measure optical input power/RSSI, and states that this pin function is selected on a memory pin map stored in the memory of the microcontroller. However, the disclosure is limited to the selectable function of pin 9 and does not describe selecting a pin function of each pin of the port connector.
The originally filed disclosure does not describe what selectable functions are available for each of the forty pins, how the microcontroller selects the function of each pin, what hardware or firmware structure performs selection for each pin, how fixed power pins, ground pins, not-connected pins, serial data/clock pins, transmitter data pins, receiver data pins, signal-detect pins, reset/rate-select pins, and fault/disable pins are each selectable, or how the memory pin map is used to select the function of every pin rather than merely store or identify a fixed pin assignment. The specification therefore provides, at most, support for selecting the function of pin 9, not for selecting a pin function of each pin of the port connector as presently claimed.
The drawings likewise fail to illustrate such an embodiment. Figure 3 depicts a fixed pin-assignment table, and Figures 1 and 2 generally depict the high-speed electrical interface, control unit, and microcontroller. However, no drawing identifies a memory means, a memory pin map, or any structure or operation by which the microcontroller selects a function of each pin of the port connector. Accordingly, the originally filed specification, including the drawings, does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed subject matter, and claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 recites that "all the WDM filters are placed at an angle of about fourth-five degrees concerning a direction of light coming from or going to the optical fiber." The phrase "fourth-five degrees" is unclear. It appears applicant may have intended to recite "forty-five degrees," but the claim does not say so. As written, "fourth-five degrees" does not provide a reasonably certain angular value or range, and therefore the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not reasonably certain.
Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites "a modulation sub-unit comprising three laser drivers and three limiting amplifiers elements, adapted to drive and modulate the lasers and to amplify electrical signals from a single and dual-rate burst mode receiver of the Hexa-BOSA."
There is a lack of antecedent basis for "the lasers" because claim 5 does not recite any lasers. Claim 5 recites a Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1, but claim 1 recites TOSAs and ROSAs and does not expressly recite lasers. The lasers are recited in claim 2, but claim 6 does not depend from claim 2.
There is also a lack of antecedent basis for "a single and dual-rate burst mode receiver of the Hexa-BOSA." Claim 5 does not recite a single-rate burst mode receiver or a dual-
rate burst mode receiver. The specific burst mode receivers are recited in claim 3, but claim 6 does not depend from claim 3.
Further, the phrase "a single and dual-rate burst mode receiver" is unclear because it is not reasonably certain whether claim 6 requires one receiver that is both single-rate and dual-rate, one single-rate burst mode receiver and one dual-rate burst mode receiver, or the collection of receivers recited in claim 3.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 6 are not reasonably certain, and claim 6 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites that "a microcontroller further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector" and that "the microcontroller [is] further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map."
The phrase "select a pin function of each pin of the port connector" is unclear in view of the claim and specification. Figure 3 provides a fixed forty-pin assignment, including ground pins, Vcc pins, not-connected pins, serial data/clock pins, transmit data pins, receive data pins, signal-detect pins, reset/rate-select pins, and fault/disable pins. The detailed description explains only a particular selectable function for pin 9. It is unclear whether claim 9 requires every pin to have multiple selectable functions, whether the memory pin map merely stores a fixed pin assignment for every pin, whether only pin 9
has a selectable function, or whether some other selection arrangement is intended. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are not reasonably certain, and claim 9 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites "The module according to claim 1, wherein a case comprises at least one SC Hexa-BOSA support and at least a case spacer to accommodate an installation of at least one Hexa-BOSA." However, claim 1 is directed to "A Hexa-bidirectional optical subassembly - Hexa-BOSA - package" and does not recite a module, a case, an SC Hexa-BOSA support, or a case spacer. Thus, claim 10 introduces module/case subject matter that is not present in claim 1.
Because claim 10 depends from claim 1, claim 10 incorporates the limitations of claim 1. However, the incorporated subject matter of claim 1 is a Hexa-BOSA package, not the SFPDD-MPM optical module recited in claim 5. It is therefore unclear whether claim 10 is intended to further limit the Hexa-BOSA package of claim 1 or the SFPDD-MPM module/case structure of claim 5.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are not reasonably certain, and claim 10 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites "wherein the SC Hexa-BOSA support is made from a plastic material." Claim 11 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 10 because claim 10 does not properly and clearly depend from a claim reciting the SFPDD-MPM module/case structure. Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites that "the case further comprises" a bottom and top part, one actuator tine, and a pull-tab. Claim 12 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 10 because the "case" of claim 10 is introduced through an improper dependency from claim 1, which does not recite the SFPDD-MPM module/case structure. Accordingly, claim 12 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and recites that "a support, a case spacer, a bottom and top parts, an actuator tine and a pull-tab are made from metal; optionally the metal is zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3, or aluminum." Claim 13 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 10 because the support, case spacer, bottom and top parts, actuator tine, and pull-tab are all tied to the module/case structure improperly introduced in claim 10. Accordingly, claim 13 is indefinite.
Accordingly, claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being in improper dependent form.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites "The module according to claim 1, wherein a case comprises at least one SC Hexa-BOSA support and at least a case spacer to accommodate an installation of at least one Hexa-BOSA." Claim 1 is directed to a Hexa-BOSA package and does not recite the SFPDD-MPM optical module, the module case, the SC Hexa-BOSA support, or the case spacer.
A dependent claim must contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Instead, claim 10 shifts from the Hexa-BOSA package of claim 1 to a module/case structure that is recited, if at all, in claim 5. To the extent applicant intended to claim the case structure of the SFPDD-MPM optical module, claim
10 should depend from a claim that actually recites the SFPDD-MPM optical module/case housing.
Accordingly, claim 10 is in improper dependent form under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Regarding claim 11–13,
Claims 11–13 depend from claim 10 and further limit the SC Hexa-BOSA support, case, bottom and top parts, actuator tine, pull-tab, and material selection. Because claim 10 is in improper dependent form and fails to properly further limit claim 1, claims 11–13 inherit the improper dependent form deficiency of claim 10.
Accordingly, claims 11–13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Regarding claim 5,
Claim 5 recites "connection and processing means adapted to drive and control the Hexa-BOSA." This limitation uses the term "means" and recites the function of driving and controlling the Hexa-BOSA. Therefore, the limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For purposes of examination, the corresponding structure is interpreted as including the control unit 111 with the disclosed modulation sub-units 210, laser drivers, limiting amplifiers, microcontroller 220, power supply 230, printed circuit board 115, flex printed circuit boards 114, and associated circuit electronics, and equivalents thereof, to the extent such structure is clearly linked in the specification to driving and controlling the Hexa-BOSA.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites "memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector." To the extent the term "memory means" is determined to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation is interpreted as being limited to the disclosed memory of the microcontroller 220 used to store the memory pin map, and equivalents thereof. This interpretation does not overcome the separate 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above regarding the unsupported and unclear requirement that the microcontroller selects a pin function of each pin of the port connector.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/terminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5-15, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 in view of SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2, SFP-DD MIS Rev. 2.0 and EP 3 723 383 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following similarity of the Claim limitations:
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2
As per Claim 5, A small form-factor pluggable double-density multiple passive optical network module - SFPDD-MPM - projected to be incorporated in a small form-factor double density - SFP-DD - transceiver host of a 25GS-PON optical network line - OLT -, XGS-PON-OLT and GPON-OLT; the optical module being characterized by comprising: a case housing: at least a Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1; a control unit comprising connection and processing means adapted to drive and control the Hexa-BOSA; a high-speed electrical interface - HSEI - adapted to provide connection to a SFP-DD transceiver host of a GPON, XGS-PON, and 25GS-PON OLT.
As per Claim 1, A dual gigabit passive optical network small form-factor pluggable - DGPONSFP - optical module configured to be incorporated in a small form-factor - SFP transceiver host of a gigabit passive optical network line terminal - GPON-OLT - characterized by comprising: a case configured to house: two bidirectional optical subassemblies - BOSAs -, wherein each BOSA is configured to provide connection to a GPON-OLT; each of the BOSAs comprising an SC ferrule adapted to provide connection to an SC optical fiber connector; a control unit comprising connection means, adapted to provide connection to each BOSA, and a microcontroller comprising processing means configured to control an operation of each BOSA; and a high-speed electrical interface - HSEI - adapted to provide connection between the microcontroller and a SFP transceiver host where the DGPONSFP is incorporated, wherein the HSEI is configured to provide connection to the SFP transceiver host where the DGPONSFP is incorporated by means of a port connector including only twenty pins and wherein a single pin of the twenty pins is configured to both disable transmission and to measure an optical input power on receivers of the BOSAs.
As per claim 6, The module according to claim 5, wherein the control unit comprises: a modulation sub-unit comprising three laser drivers and three limiting amplifiers elements, adapted to drive and modulate the lasers and to amplify electrical signals from a single and dual-rate burst mode receiver of the Hexa-BOSA; and a microcontroller configured to communicate with the SFP-DD transceiver host through the HSEI and to control an operation of the modulation sub-unit.
As per claim 2, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 1, wherein each BOSA comprises a laser, adapted to operate at gigabit passive optical network - GPON downstream wavelength at 2.5 Gbit/s, and a burst mode receiver adapted to operate at GPON upstream wavelength at 1.25 Gbit/s. As per claim 3, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 2, wherein the control unit comprises: a modulation sub-unit including two laser driver and limiting amplifier elements, adapted to drive and modulate the lasers and to amplify electrical signals from the burst mode receiver of each BOSA; and wherein, the microcontroller is further configured to control the operation of the modulation sub-unit.
As per claim 7, The module according to claim 6, wherein the connection between the Hexa-BOSA and the respective laser driver and limiting amplifier of each modulation sub-unit is provided through a flex printed circuit board.
As per claim 4, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 3, wherein the connection between each BOSA and the respective laser driver and limiting amplifier of each modulation sub-unit is provided through a flex printed circuit board.
As per claim 8, The module according claim 5, wherein the HSEI is a forty-pin high speed electrical interface, being configured to provide connection to the SFP-DD transceiver host where the SFPDD-MPM is incorporated employing a port connector.
As per claim 5, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 1, wherein the HSEI is configured to provided connection to the SFP transceiver host where the DGPONSFP is incorporated by means of a port connector. As per claim 7, the port connector is comprised by twenty pins.
As per claim 9, The module according to claim 8, wherein the port connector is comprised by a plurality of pins, and wherein a microcontroller further comprises memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector; the microcontroller being further programmed to select a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map; optionally, the port connector is comprised of forty pins.
As per claim 6, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 5, 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 pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map. As per claim 7, the port connector is comprised by twenty pins.
As per claim 10, The module according to claim 1, wherein a case comprises at least one SC Hexa-BOSA support and at least a case spacer to accommodate an installation of at least one Hexa-BOSA.
As per claim 8, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 1, wherein the case comprises following parts: two SC BOSA supports and a case spacer to accommodate installation of the two BOSAs.
As per claim 11, The module according to claim 10, wherein the SC Hexa-BOSA support is made from a plastic material.
As per claim 8, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 6, wherein the two SC BOSA supports are made from a plastic material.
As per claim 12, The module according to claim 10, wherein the case further comprises: a bottom and a top part; one actuator tine adapted to allow an extraction of the module from a host case of the SFP-DD transceiver where it is incorporated; a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the module.
As per claim 7, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 6, wherein the case further comprises the following parts: a bottom and a top part; one actuator tine adapted to allow extraction of the DGPONSFP optical module from a SFP transceiver host's cage where it is incorporated; a pull-tab to allow a manual pull of the DGPONSFP module.
As per claim 13, The module according to claim 10 wherein a support, a case spacer, a bottom and top parts, a actuator tine and a pull-tab are made from metal; optionally the metal is zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3, or aluminum.
As per claim 9, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 6 wherein elements of the case are made from metal. As per claim 10, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 9, wherein the case is made from zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3 or aluminium.
As per claim 14, The module according to a claim 5, wherein size of the case is standardized to fit within a receptacle cage of an SFP-DD transceiver host.
As per claim 11, The DGPONSFP optical module according to claim 1, wherein a size of the case is standardized in order to fit within a receptacle cage of a SFP transceiver host.
As per claim 15, An SFP-DD transceiver host comprising at least one SFPDD-MPM optical module according to claim 5.
As per claim 12, A SFP transceiver host comprising at least one DGPONSFP optical module as claimed in claim 1.
As per claim 18, A GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15.
As per claim 13, A GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP transceiver host as claimed in claim 12.
As per claim 19, A Multi-PON OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15.
As per claim 13, A GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP transceiver host as claimed in claim 12.
The features of claim 5 of the current application that are not present in claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 are:
“small form-factor pluggable double-density multiple passive optical network module - SFPDD-MPM - projected to be incorporated in a small form-factor double density - SFP-DD - transceiver host of a 25GS-PON optical network line - OLT -, XGS-PON-OLT and GPON-OLT; at least a Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1; and a high-speed electrical interface - HSEI - adapted to provide connection to a SFP-DD transceiver host of a GPON, XGS-PON, and 25GS-PON OLT.”
However, in an analogous art, SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 teaches a small form-factor double density - SFP-DD - transceiver host and module system. SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 teaches that the SFP-DD form factor system consists of a transceiver module, cage and connector and provides two channels for high speed signals that can support a two-lane trunked application or two independent single-lane applications. SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 further teaches that the SFP-DD module edge connector consists of a single paddle card with 20 pads on the top and 20 pads on the bottom of the paddle card for a total of 40 pads.
Accordingly, SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 teaches the known SFP-DD module, host, cage, connector, two-channel double density form factor, and forty-pin high speed electrical interface features. Additionally, EP 3 723 383 A1 teaches the known GPON and XGPON coexistence problem and combo optical module solution in a PON optical line terminal environment. EP 3 723 383 A1 teaches that both a GPON service and an XGPON service can exist in the same optical distribution network and teaches a combo optical module, OLT and PON system for reducing cost, saving equipment room space, simplifying construction and cabling, and facilitating maintenance. Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements not expressly recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 ( i.e. SFP-DD transceiver host,
double density module, forty-pin HSEI, and GPON/XGS-PON multi-PON OLT environment ). The combination of the known elements is achieved by implementing the known SFP-DD double density transceiver host and forty-pin interface mentioned by SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 and the known GPON/XGPON coexistence optical line terminal architecture mentioned by EP 3 723 383 A1 within the dual GPON small form-factor pluggable optical module taught in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2.
Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the invention to add the elements taught in SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 and EP 3 723 383 A1
to the system taught in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 as no more “than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.”
The features of claim 9 of the current application that are not present in claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 are :
“the port connector is comprised of forty pins” and the microcontroller selects “a pin function of each pin of the port connector based on the memory pin map.”
However, in an analogous art, SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 teaches the forty-pin SFP-DD port connector by teaching that the SFP-DD module edge connector has 20 pads on the top and 20 pads on the bottom for a total of 40 pads. SFP-DD Management Interface Specification Rev. 2.0 teaches a management interface that transfers management data over a Two-Wire-Interface (TWI), using a 256 byte addressable memory window, and teaches a module management
memory map including Application Advertising registers, Application Select control registers, data path configuration, Control Sets, lane assignment options, and host selection of Applications. Accordingly, the prior art references teach a memory-map based management interface for module configuration and pin/lane/application function selection in an SFP-DD module. The combination of the known elements is achieved by using the memory pin map and register selected pin functions already taught in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 with the SFP-DD forty-pin hardware and SFP-DD MIS memory-map based management interface.
Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the invention to add the elements taught in SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 and SFP-DD Management Interface Specification Rev. 2.0
to the system taught in claims 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 as no more “than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.”
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15 - The following claims depend from, or incorporate, the rejected subject matter of claim 5 and therefore the following claims are considered rejected. Regarding claims 10, 11, 12 and 13 - The following claims recite case/support/spacer/pull-tab limitations that are not patentably distinct from the corresponding case/support/spacer/pull-tab limitations of claims 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2, as shown above. Regarding claim 18 - The following claim recites a GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15 and therefore is not patentably distinct from claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 in view of the known SFP-DD host. Regarding claim 19 - The following claim
recites a Multi-PON OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15 and therefore is not patentably distinct from the patented GPON-OLT architecture in view of the known GPON/XGPON coexistence and multi-PON OLT teachings of EP 3 723 383 A1.
Regarding claim 19- The present claim merely recites a Multi-PON OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15. U.S. Patent No. 12,143,154 B2 claim 13 already teaches a GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP transceiver host, and EP 3 723 383 A1 teaches the known GPON/XGPON coexistence and combo PON OLT environment. Therefore, the Multi-PON OLT limitation is not patentably distinct from the patented GPON-OLT module architecture in view of the known multi-PON coexistence art.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (EP3723383A1) in view of Lin et al. (US2018/0059340A1) and Applied Optoelectronics (WO2017044422A1).
Claim 1
As per claim 1, Li teaches a Hexa-bidirectional optical subassembly package in the form of a combo bidirectional optical subassembly / combo optical module for PON, except that Li
expressly describes two upstream receiver wavelengths and two downstream transmitter wavelengths rather than the claimed three ROSAs, three TOSAs, and five WDM filters. Lin and Applied, however, teach multi-channel optical transceiver structures using plural TOSAs, plural ROSAs, plural TO-can laser packages, plural WDM optical components, and optical coupling receptacles, and further teach that optical component assemblies may be arranged at selectable angles, including about 45 degrees, to multiplex and demultiplex multiple wavelength channels.
Li teaches the optical-module/PON environment and the BOSA architecture.
Li states: "Embodiments of this application provide a receiver optical sub-assembly, a transmitter optical sub-assembly, a combo bi-directional optical sub-assembly, a combo optical module, an optical line terminal, and a passive optical network system, to multiplex upstream and downstream wavelengths, and therefore reduce construction costs, save equipment room space, simplify construction and cabling, and facilitate management and maintenance." [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0006]]
Li further teaches that a typical BOSA includes a housing, a TOSA, a ROSA, a demultiplexer, an optical fiber connection ferrule, and an optical fiber, stating: "A typical BOSA structure is shown in FIG. 3, including a housing 05, a built-in transmitter optical sub-assembly (Transmitter Optical sub-assembly, TOSA) 06 in the housing 05, a receiver optical sub-assembly (Receiver Optical sub-assembly, ROSA) 07, a demultiplexer 08 disposed in the housing 05, and an optical fiber connection ferrule 09 and an optical fiber 091 that are connected to an end of the housing 05." [Li, p. 8, ¶ [0071], FIG. 3]
Li teaches receiver optical subassemblies in TO packages.
Li states: "the receiver optical sub-assembly includes a first transistor-outline can, where a light incident hole is disposed on the first transistor-outline can, and a first demultiplexer, a first optical receiver, a second optical receiver, and an optical lens combination are packaged in the first transistor-outline can." [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0008]]
Li also explains the reason for the TO package, stating: "a transistor-outline can is used for packaging, and therefore is compatible with an existing TO packaging process." [Li, p. 3, ¶ [0009]]
Li further teaches transmitter optical subassemblies in TO packages, stating: "a transmitter optical sub-assembly, including a second transistor-outline can, where an out-light hole is disposed on the second transistor-outline can, a multiplexer, a first optical transmitter, and a second optical transmitter are packaged in the second transistor-outline can." [Li, p. 5, ¶ [0034]]
Li teaches the WDM filter/multiplexer/demultiplexer function and the optical coupling receptacle/fiber communication path.
Li states that "wavelength division multiplexing (wavelength division multiplexing, WDM) module 04 is used to multiplex upstream and downstream wavelengths of the GPON and the XGPON" [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]], and further teaches that the combo bidirectional optical subassembly includes "a housing, where an optical transmission channel is disposed in the housing, a second demultiplexer is disposed on the optical transmission channel, and an optical receive port, an optical transmit port, and an optical fiber connection port that are in
communication with the optical transmission channel are disposed in the housing." [Li, p. 6, ¶ [0049]].
Li also states that the second demultiplexer reflects received wavelengths to the receiver optical subassembly and transmits outgoing wavelengths to the optical fiber connection port. [Li, p. 6, ¶ ¶ [0050]-[0051]].
Lin and Applied teach scaling the optical subassembly to multiple wavelength channels. Lin teaches an optical transceiver with a multi-channel TOSA and a multi-channel ROSA, stating: "FIG. 1 schematically illustrates an embodiment of an optical transceiver module including a multi-channel transmitter optical sub-assembly (TOSA) arrangement and multi-channel receiver optical sub-assembly (ROSA)." [Lin, p. 1, ¶ [0006], FIG. 1].
Lin further teaches that the TOSA/ROSA assemblies transmit and receive multiple channel wavelengths and use mirrors/filters to multiplex/demultiplex signals, stating: "Optical transceivers can include one or more transmitter optical subassemblies (TOSAs) and receiver optical subassemblies (ROSAs) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving optical signals" and that "the design of a TOSA/ROSA often requires light to be directed in a manner that allows for multiplexing or demultiplexing of a signal." [Lin, p. 1, ¶ [0004], ¶ [0017]]
Applied teaches a multi-channel TOSA with multiple TO-can laser packages and a multi-channel ROSA in a small form factor transceiver.
Applied states: "the optical transceiver 100 transmits and receives four (4) channels using four different channel wavelengths" [Applied, p. 6, ¶ [0023]], and further states that "the multi-channel TOSA 110 includes multiple TO can laser packages and optics for producing
associated channel wavelengths" [Applied, p. 7, ¶ [0027]] and that "the multi-channel ROSA 112 includes multiple photodiode packages, and optics such as mirrors and filters for receiving a multiplexed optical signal and de-multiplexing the same into associated channel wavelengths." [Applied, p. 8, ¶ [0028]].
Applied also expressly states that "This embodiment of the optical transceiver 100 includes 4 channels and may be configured for coarse wavelength division multiplexing (CWDM), although other numbers of channels are possible." [Applied, p. 8, ¶ [0029]].
Lin teaches the claimed about forty-five-degree filter orientation. Lin states that the optical component assembly provides a mounting surface for optical components including filters and mirrors, and that the physical orientation of the opening can provide a predetermined angle of incidence between an optical component and a light path. [Lin, p. 2, ¶ ¶ [0018]-[0020]].
Lin further teaches a 45-degree optical arrangement, stating: "the optical axis 540 may also extend at an angle θ2 relative to the longitudinal axis 508, with the angle θ4 about 45 degrees" [Lin, p. 5, ¶ [0050], FIGS. 5A-5D], and also teaches that a filter can be angled diagonally relative to the longitudinal axis. [Lin, p. 5, ¶ [0051]].
The difference between Li and the claimed invention is that Li alone does not expressly disclose three ROSAs, three TOSAs, and five WDM filters/slots in a single Hexa-BOSA package. However, within analogous art, Lin and Applied teach multi-channel optical transceivers with multiple TOSAs/ROSAs, multiple TO-can packages, multiple filters, and multiplexing/demultiplexing of multiple wavelength channels, and Applied expressly states that other numbers of channels are possible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale Li's
combo BOSA/OLT/PON optical module from the two-PON coexistence configuration to a three-PON coexistence configuration with three downstream transmitters and three upstream receivers, using five wavelength-selective WDM elements to route six wavelength paths to and from a common optical fiber receptacle, because doing so merely applies the known multi-channel WDM optical subassembly teachings of Lin/Applied to Li's known combo PON module to increase port density and support additional PON coexistence wavelengths.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited teachings because the references are in the same field of optical communication modules, PON optical modules, multi-channel TOSA/ROSA/BOSA assemblies, wavelength division multiplexing, and standardized pluggable transceiver host interfaces. The combination does not change the principle of operation of the references; rather, it predictably applies known wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing, known multi-channel TO-can optical assemblies, known SFP-DD electrical/mechanical host architecture, and known module management functions to obtain a compact pluggable multi-PON optical module. The motivation is further supported by Li's stated problem that external WDM modules increase construction costs, occupy equipment-room space, make construction and cabling complex, and make management and maintenance difficult.
A person of ordinary skill would therefore have had a clear reason to integrate the WDM, transmitter, receiver, and host-interface functions into a compact pluggable module form factor with predictable results.
Additionally, the rationale for claim 1 is strengthened by the fact that each reference addresses the same design pressure expressly present in the claimed invention: increasing optical channel density within a compact pluggable optical module while keeping the wavelength paths separated and optically coupled to a common receptacle/fiber interface. Li teaches the PON problem and integration of multiplexing/demultiplexing into a combo BOSA/module to avoid external WDM equipment. [Li, p. 2, ¶¶ [0005]-[0006]] Lin teaches plural TO-can optical packages and plural wavelength filters arranged in a multi-channel optical subassembly. [Lin, FIGS. 3-6; p. 2, ¶ ¶ [0019]-[0022]].
Applied teaches that the number of channels in a multi-channel TOSA/ROSA may be more than the illustrated number and that multiple TO-can laser packages can be optically combined to an optical coupling receptacle. [Applied, p. 6, ¶ ¶ [0023]-[0029]] Thus, increasing Li's two-service combo PON BOSA architecture to the claimed three-service Hexa-BOSA architecture would have been the predictable use of known multi-channel optical subassembly scaling techniques to obtain the known benefit of higher density and coexistence in a single module.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Li, Lin and Applied as discussed above, except wherein claim 2 further requires the Hexa-BOSA comprises a first laser for 25GS-PON downstream at 24.88 Gbit/s, a second laser for XGS-PON downstream at 9.95 Gbit/s, and a third laser for GPON downstream at 2.48 Gbit/s. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li teaches GPON/XGPON/25G PON wavelength-rate coexistence in an OLT/PON system.
Li states: "the PON network that is deployed on a large scale includes... GPON" and that "a to-be-deployed next-generation network is a 10G-EPON and a 10G-GPON (also referred to as XGPON), and supports a rate of 10 Gbit/s." [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]]
Li further states: "the optical modules in the plurality of optical network units include at least two of a GPON optical module, an XGPON optical module, a 25G-GPON optical module, and a 50G-GPON optical module." [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]]
Applied teaches that the multi-channel TOSA includes multiple TO-can laser packages for producing associated channel wavelengths. [Applied, p. 7, ¶ [0027].]
A person of ordinary skill would have used one laser for each downstream PON wavelength because Li expressly identifies GPON, XGPON, and 25G-GPON optical modules as coexistence candidates and Applied teaches using multiple TO-can laser packages for different channel wavelengths in one optical transceiver. The use of three lasers is a predictable one-laser-per-downstream-wavelength implementation of the known PON wavelength plan. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 2 is not merely to add another laser as an arbitrary duplication, but to provide a separate downstream source for each of the known PON downstream wavelengths identified by the art.
Li expressly recognizes GPON and XGPON coexistence and identifies the GPON downstream 1490-nm and XGPON downstream 1577-nm wavelengths. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005].]
Li also identifies PON systems including GPON, XGPON, and 25G-GPON optical modules. [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]].
Lin/Applied teach that multiple channel wavelengths are generated by multiple TO-can laser packages in a multi-channel TOSA.
A person of ordinary skill would therefore have been motivated to provide a laser corresponding to each downstream PON service because each downstream PON service is transmitted at a different wavelength/rate and the obvious way to maintain wavelength separation in a compact module is to use a corresponding transmitter source for each wavelength.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 2 are taught by Li, Lin and Applied as discussed above, except wherein claim 3 further requires a first dual-rate burst mode receiver for 25GS-PON upstream at 9.95 Gbit/s and 24.88 Gbit/s, a second dual-rate burst mode receiver for XGS-PON upstream at 2.48 Gbit/s and 9.95 Gbit/s, and a burst mode receiver for GPON upstream at 1.24 Gbit/s. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li teaches that GPON, XGPON, and 25G-GPON optical modules may coexist in the same PON system. [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]]
Li also teaches that a ROSA receives an optical signal transmitted through an optical fiber and converts it into an electrical signal. "Receiver optical sub-assembly (Receiver Optical sub-
assembly, ROSA): A function of the ROSA is to receive an optical signal transmitted through an optical fiber, and convert the optical signal into an electrical signal." [Li, p. 8, ¶ [0070]].
Applied teaches a multi-channel ROSA with multiple photodiode packages and optics for receiving a multiplexed signal and demultiplexing it into associated channel wavelengths. [Applied, p. 8, ¶ [0028]].
A person of ordinary skill would have used a corresponding burst-mode receiver for each PON upstream wavelength/rate because an OLT-side PON module must receive burst-mode upstream traffic from ONUs, and Li/Applied already teach a multi-wavelength receiver subassembly for receiving and demultiplexing different channel wavelengths. The selection of receiver data rates corresponding to GPON, XGS-PON, and 25GS-PON upstream services would have been dictated by the known PON standards and would have produced predictable receiver operation.
Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 3 is also technically direct. PON OLT upstream reception is burst-mode because multiple ONUs transmit upstream bursts to the OLT over shared PON timing.
Li teaches an OLT/PON environment with multiple ONUs in the same ODN. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0004]; FIGS. 1-2] Once the skilled artisan provides the three downstream lasers for GPON, XGPON/XGS-PON, and 25G-PON services, the same optical coexistence architecture necessarily requires corresponding upstream receivers for the different upstream wavelength/rate pairs. Using dual-rate burst-mode receivers for services sharing compatible upstream windows and a
further burst-mode receiver for the third service would have been a predictable receiver-side counterpart to the transmitter-side wavelength expansion.
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Li, Lin and Applied as discussed above, except wherein claim 4 further requires an SC ferrule adapted to provide connection to an SC optical fiber connector. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li teaches an optical fiber connection ferrule and optical fiber connected to the BOSA housing, stating that a typical BOSA includes "an optical fiber connection ferrule 09 and an optical fiber 091 that are connected to an end of the housing 05." [Li, p. 8, ¶ [0071], FIG. 3]
Li also teaches optical fiber connection port communication with the optical transmission channel. [Li, p. 6, ¶ [0049]].
A person of ordinary skill would have used an SC ferrule/SC connector in Li's PON optical module because SC connectorized single-fiber bidirectional connections were conventional in PON OLT transceiver modules and provide a predictable standard optical-fiber interface. Substituting an SC ferrule for Li's disclosed optical fiber connection ferrule is a routine connector choice within the same PON optical module environment. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 4 is strengthened because the claimed SC ferrule is a mechanical/optical connector implementation, not a change in the optical principle. Li already
teaches a BOSA with an optical fiber connection ferrule and an optical fiber connected to the housing. [Li, p. 8, ¶ [0071]].
The present application itself is in the PON OLT module field where single-fiber bidirectional SC connectors were conventionally used. A skilled artisan would have selected an SC ferrule for the optical coupling receptacle to obtain compatibility with known PON fiber connector infrastructure and to maintain the single-fiber bidirectional architecture taught by Li.
Claims 5-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Lin and Applied, further in view of SFP-DD MSA Hardware Specification Rev. 4.2, SFP-DD MIS Management Interface Specification Rev. 2.0, and Soto et al. (US8238754B2).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Li in view of Lin and Applied teaches the Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 5 further requires a small form-factor pluggable double-density multiple passive optical network module - SFPDD-MPM - projected to be incorporated in a small form-factor double density - SFP-DD - transceiver host of a 25GS-PON optical network line - OLT -, XGS-PON-OLT and GPON-OLT, the optical module comprising a case housing at least the Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1, a control unit comprising connection and processing means adapted to drive and control the Hexa-BOSA, and a high-speed electrical interface - HSEI
- adapted to provide connection to a SFP-DD transceiver host of a GPON, XGS-PON, and 25GS-PON OLT.
Li, Lin and Applied teach the Hexa-BOSA/multi-PON optical subassembly limitations, and SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2 and Soto teach the additional SFP-DD module, case, host, control-unit, HSEI, and pluggable-module features, as set forth below.
Li in view of Lin and Applied teaches the Hexa-BOSA/multi-PON optical subassembly limitations incorporated into claim 5 through the recitation of "at least a Hexa-BOSA according to claim 1," as discussed above.
The SFP-DD MSA Specification teaches the small form-factor pluggable double-density SFP-DD transceiver host, module, cage, connector, electrical signals, power supplies, and mechanical interface. Soto teaches known pluggable optical modules for passive optical networks and the conventional internal electronic circuits of an optical module.
SFP-DD MSA teaches the SFP-DD module/host environment, stating: "This specification defines: the electrical and optical connectors, electrical signals and power supplies, mechanical and thermal requirements of the pluggable SFP Double Density (SFP-DD) module, connector and cage system." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 1, Abstract.]
It further states: "The SFP-DD form factor system consisting of a transceiver module, cage and connector provides two channels for high speed signals that can support a two-lane trunked application or two independent single-lane applications." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.2.]
SFP-DD MSA also teaches intended applications, stating: "This specification defines a connector, cage and module for single or double lane applications at up to 58 Gb/s per lane"
and that "The SFP-DD interface can support pluggable modules or direct attach cables based on multimode fiber, single mode fiber or copper wires." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 11, sec. 3.3.]
Soto teaches known optical module electronics and the known reason for using integrated optical modules. Soto states: "Optical modules integrate components used in the transmission and reception of optical signals into a single packaged subsystem" and that the integrated module approach can "consume less power and increase port densities over board-level solutions built from discrete components." [Soto, col. 1, ll. 27-39, p. 23.]
Soto further teaches a typical optical module composed of a "laser 1101; laser driver (LD) 1102; photodetector (PD) 1103; transimpedance amplifier (TIA) 1104; limiting amplifier (LA) 1105" and physical-layer devices, and that optical modules have optical fibers for reception/transmission and input/output pins. [Soto, col. 1, ll. 45-65, p. 23, FIG. 11.]
The difference between Li/Lin/Applied and claim 5 is that Li/Lin/Applied teach the multi-PON Hexa-BOSA / optical subassembly subject matter, but do not alone expressly recite packaging that Hexa-BOSA in a small form-factor pluggable double-density SFP-DD module having a standardized SFP-DD host/cage/connector interface, a case housing the Hexa-BOSA, a control unit, and an HSEI adapted to connect to an SFP-DD transceiver host of GPON, XGS-PON, and 25GS-PON OLTs. However, SFP-DD MSA provides the SFP-DD host/cage/module interface and Li provides the GPON/XGPON/25G-PON coexistence motivation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to package the multi-PON BOSA/optical module of Li as modified by Lin/Applied into the SFP-DD pluggable module/host architecture taught by SFP-DD MSA because SFP-DD is a known higher-density pluggable
module form factor, and Li expressly seeks to reduce cost, save space, simplify cabling, and facilitate maintenance by integrating PON WDM functions into an optical module. The result would have been a predictable SFP-DD multi-PON OLT module having a case, a multi-channel BOSA/Hexa-BOSA, a control unit, and an HSEI connected to an SFP-DD host.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited teachings because the references are in the same field of optical communication modules, PON optical modules, multi-channel TOSA/ROSA/BOSA assemblies, wavelength division multiplexing, and standardized pluggable transceiver host interfaces. The combination does not change the principle of operation of the references; rather, it predictably applies known wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing, known multi-channel TO-can optical assemblies, known SFP-DD electrical/mechanical host architecture, and known module management functions to obtain a compact pluggable multi-PON optical module.
The motivation is further supported by Li's stated problem that external WDM modules increase construction costs, occupy equipment-room space, make construction and cabling complex, and make management and maintenance difficult.
A person of ordinary skill would therefore have had a clear reason to integrate the WDM, transmitter, receiver, and host-interface functions into a compact pluggable module form factor with predictable results.
The claim 5 combination is further supported by the SFP-DD specification itself because SFP-DD was publicly released before the effective filing date and was designed specifically to provide a higher-density pluggable module, connector, and cage system with two high-speed channels.
SFP-DD MSA states that "the SFP-DD form factor system consisting of a transceiver module, cage and connector provides two channels for high speed signals that can support a two-lane trunked application or two independent single-lane applications" [SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2, p. 9, sec. 3.2.]. The same section explains that the connector adds another twenty contacts to support a second channel. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.2].
A person of ordinary skill would therefore have been motivated to implement Li/Lin/Applied's multi-PON optical subassembly in an SFP-DD module because SFP-DD predictably provides the extra contacts, host compatibility, and higher-density cage/module architecture needed to carry multiple PON channels in a compact pluggable package.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 5 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 6 further requires the control unit comprises a modulation sub-unit comprising three laser drivers and three limiting amplifier elements, and a microcontroller configured to communicate with the SFP-DD transceiver host through the HSEI and control operation of the modulation sub-unit. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Soto teaches the conventional laser driver and limiting amplifier elements of optical modules, stating that "A typical optical module 1100... is composed of a: laser 1101; laser driver (LD) 1102; photodetector (PD) 1103; transimpedance amplifier (TIA) 1104; limiting amplifier (LA) 1105" [Soto, col. 1, ll. 45-54, p. 23, FIG. 11.]
SFP-DD MIS teaches host/module management over TWI and memory-mapped management registers, stating: "The management communication interface provides a number of elementary management operations that allow the host to read from or write to byte-sized management registers in the management memory map of the module." [SFP-DD MIS Rev. 2.0, p. 18, sec. 5.2.1.]
SFP-DD MIS further teaches that the host is the master and the module is the slave. [SFP-DD MIS, p. 18, sec. 5.2.1.]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this feature because the combined multi-PON SFP-DD module necessarily requires electrical drive circuitry, receive-amplification circuitry, host-management communication, and compact interconnection between optical subassemblies and the module PCB. The cited feature performs its known function in the same predictable way: laser drivers drive lasers, limiting amplifiers amplify receiver outputs, flexible printed circuits route signals in compact optical modules, and SFP-DD memory/TWI registers allow host-module management and pin/lane configuration. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The detailed reason for adding the claim 6 control-unit structure is that the optical sources and receivers disclosed by Li, Lin, and Applied cannot operate in a pluggable host module without driver, amplifier, power, and control electronics. Soto expressly identifies the conventional internal building blocks of optical modules, including a laser, laser driver, photodetector, TIA, limiting amplifier, mux/demux, and input/output pins. [Soto, col. 1, ll. 45-65, p. 23, FIG. 11].
SFP-DD MIS further provides the host-module management framework over TWI/SDA/SCL and memory-map registers. [SFP-DD MIS, pp. 17-18, secs. 4-5.2.2].
It would have been obvious to include three laser drivers, three limiting amplifiers, and a microcontroller/control unit to drive the three TOSA lasers, amplify receiver outputs, communicate with the host over the standardized SFP-DD management interface, and control module operation in accordance with ordinary pluggable optical transceiver practice.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 6 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 7 further requires the connection between the Hexa-BOSA and the respective laser driver and limiting amplifier of each modulation sub-unit is provided through a flex printed circuit board. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Applied teaches flexible printed circuit connections in a small-form-factor multi-channel optical transceiver, stating: "The multi-channel TOSA 110 electrically couples to transmit flexible printed circuits (FPCs) 204 and couples to the optical interface port 114 at an end of the transceiver housing 102. The multi-channel ROSA 112 electrically couples to a receive FPC 208, and couples to the optical interface port 114 at the end of the transceiver housing 102." [Applied, p. 9, ¶ [0030], FIGS. 2A-2B].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this feature because the combined multi-PON SFP-DD module necessarily requires electrical drive circuitry, receive-
amplification circuitry, host-management communication, and compact interconnection between optical subassemblies and the module PCB. The cited feature performs its known function in the same predictable way: laser drivers drive lasers, limiting amplifiers amplify receiver outputs, flexible printed circuits route signals in compact optical modules, and SFP-DD memory/TWI registers allow host-module management and pin/lane configuration. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 7 is particularly strong because flex printed circuits solve a predictable packaging problem created by compact pluggable modules: the optical subassembly is positioned near the optical receptacle, while the control electronics and host electrical edge connector are positioned on the PCB toward the rear of the module. Applied teaches transmit and receive connecting circuits that electrically couple the multi-channel TOSA/ROSA to the module circuitry and external data bus. [Applied, p. 7, ¶ ¶ [0024]-[0028].] A skilled artisan would have used a flex-printed circuit connection between the optical subassembly and the driver/amplifier electronics because it provides the known predictable benefits of routing signals in a small module, accommodating mechanical offsets, reducing assembly stress, and maintaining the standardized pluggable module dimensions.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 5 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 8 further requires the HSEI is a forty-pin high speed electrical interface configured to provide connection to the SFP-DD transceiver host
employing a port connector. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
SFP-DD MSA expressly teaches a forty-pad SFP-DD electrical interface. It states: "The SFP-DD module edge connector consists of a single paddle card with 20 pads on the top and 20 pads on the bottom of the paddle card for a total of 40 pads." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 12, sec. 4.1.] It further states: "Figure 3 shows the signal symbols and pad numbering for the SFP-DD module edge connector" and "There are 40 pads intended for high speed signals, low speed signals, power and ground connections." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 12, sec. 4.1, FIG. 3, Table 1.]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this feature because the combined multi-PON SFP-DD module necessarily requires electrical drive circuitry, receive-amplification circuitry, host-management communication, and compact interconnection between optical subassemblies and the module PCB. The cited feature performs its known function in the same predictable way: laser drivers drive lasers, limiting amplifiers amplify receiver outputs, flexible printed circuits route signals in compact optical modules, and SFP-DD memory/TWI registers allow host-module management and pin/lane configuration. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 8 follows directly from the chosen SFP-DD form factor.
SFP-DD MSA expressly defines a forty-pad module edge connector, stating: "The SFP-DD module edge connector consists of a single paddle card with 20 pads on the top and 20 pads on the bottom of the paddle card for a total of 40 pads." [SFP-DD MSA Rev. 4.2, p. 12, sec.
4.1.]
SFP-DD MSA further provides Table 1 with the pad function definitions for those forty pads. [SFP-DD MSA, pp. 13-14, FIG. 3 and Table 1].
Once the skilled artisan chooses SFP-DD to increase density and carry multiple PON electrical lanes, using the forty-pin HSEI is not optional experimentation; it is the standardized SFP-DD electrical interface required for interoperability with the SFP-DD host.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 9 further requires the port connector includes a plurality of pins and the microcontroller includes memory means adapted to store a memory pin map of the port connector, and is programmed to select a pin function of each pin based on the memory pin map. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
SFP-DD MSA teaches that the connector provides contacts for high-speed data, channel control/status, power, and a Two-Wire Interface for communication with module memory, stating: "In addition to contacts for the high speed data signals, the connector provides contacts for module and channel control and status signals including a pair that form a Two-Wire Interface (TWI) for communication with the module's memory." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.2.]
SFP-DD MIS teaches the memory map and management structure, stating: "Characteristic common to all SFP-DD MIS compliant modules is that management data is transferred over a Two-Wire-Interface (TWI), using a 256 byte addressable memory window, with mechanisms to dynamically page data of a much larger management memory space into the upper half of the host addressable memory window." [SFP-DD MIS, p. 10, sec. 1].
SFP-DD MIS further teaches application selection and lane assignment through memory-map registers: "The host uses the ApSel code to assign that Application to one or more specific host lanes using the Application Select Control registers" [SFP-DD MIS, p. 33, sec. 6.2.3], and teaches that "Control Set is a group of registers that are used to provide configuration settings for use by the module during Data Path initialization." [SFP-DD MIS, p. 33, sec. 6.2.3].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this feature because the combined multi-PON SFP-DD module necessarily requires electrical drive circuitry, receive-amplification circuitry, host-management communication, and compact interconnection between optical subassemblies and the module PCB. The cited feature performs its known function in the same predictable way: laser drivers drive lasers, limiting amplifiers amplify receiver outputs, flexible printed circuits route signals in compact optical modules, and SFP-DD memory/TWI registers allow host-module management and pin/lane configuration. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 9 is strengthened by the fact that SFP-DD MIS was created to let hosts configure and control pluggable modules through a defined memory map. SFP-DD MIS states
that management data is transferred over TWI using a 256-byte addressable memory window with paging mechanisms. [SFP-DD MIS Rev. 2.0, p. 10, sec. 1].
SFP-DD MIS also states that the host reads and writes byte-sized management registers in the module management memory map. [SFP-DD MIS, p. 18, sec. 5.2.1].
SFP-DD MSA specifically teaches dual-use pin functionality through TWI, including that IntL/TxFaultDD may be configured via TWI. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 14, Table 1, pad 22.] A skilled artisan would therefore have been motivated to store a pin map in module memory and use the microcontroller to select or interpret pin functions so that the same standardized connector pins could support the required PON control/status functions while remaining compatible with the SFP-DD host.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 5 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 14 further requires the size of the case is standardized to fit within a receptacle cage of an SFP-DD transceiver host. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
SFP-DD MSA teaches the SFP-DD module/cage/connector system and standardized mechanical interchangeability, stating: "Implementations compliant to dimensions, mounting and insertion requirements defined in Chapter 6 for the bezel, optical module, cable plug, cage and connector system on a circuit board ensure that these products are mechanically interchangeable." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.1.]
SFP-DD MSA also depicts the "SFP-DD Cage, Connector and Module" in Figure 2. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 11, FIG. 2].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 14, the standardized case-size limitation would have been obvious because SFP-DD MSA is not merely a general reference; it is the controlling form-factor document that defines the module/cage/connector geometry. SFP-DD MSA states that the specification covers the electrical, mechanical, environmental, and management aspects of the module and that Chapter 6 defines mechanical specifications, printed circuit board recommendations, labeling, and optical interface examples. [SFP-DD MSA, pp. 7-8, secs. 1.1-2.1].
A skilled artisan implementing a module for an SFP-DD host would necessarily design the case to fit in the SFP-DD receptacle cage so that the module could be inserted, retained, extracted, and electrically mated in the standardized host.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 5 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 15 further requires an SFP-DD transceiver host
comprising at least one SFPDD-MPM optical module according to claim 5. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
SFP-DD MSA teaches a host board, host edge connector, and SFP-DD module in a host interface, stating that Figure 1 shows "the high-speed data interface between an ASIC and the SFP-DD module" and Figure 2 shows the "SFP-DD Cage, Connector and Module." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 11, sec. 3.3, FIGS. 1-2].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 15, the SFP-DD transceiver host is directly suggested by the SFP-DD application reference model and cage/connector/module system. SFP-DD MSA Figure 1 shows the high-speed data interface between a host ASIC and the SFP-DD module, and Figure 2 illustrates the SFP-DD cage, connector, and module. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 11, FIGS. 1-2].
Because Li teaches an OLT optical module disposed on a board in an optical line terminal and SFP-DD MSA teaches the standardized host/module interface, it would have been obvious to place the claimed module in an SFP-DD transceiver host to obtain the predictable density and interoperability benefits of the standard.
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 16 further requires a 25GS-PON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li teaches that the optical modules in a PON system may include 25G PON optical modules, stating: "the optical modules in the plurality of optical network units include at least two of a GPON optical module, an XGPON optical module, a 25G-GPON optical module, and a 50G-GPON optical module." [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]].
Li further teaches optical line terminals and combo optical modules. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0004]; p. 7, ¶ ¶ [0056]-[0061]].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 16, the 25GS-PON OLT limitation would have been obvious because Li et al. expressly identifies 25G PON/25G-GPON optical modules as part of the same coexistence architecture. [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]]. The reason to implement a 25GS-PON OLT with the SFP-DD host is the same
density and coexistence rationale: a 25G PON service requires a corresponding OLT optical interface, and SFP-DD supplies a compact standardized host structure capable of carrying multiple high-speed channels.
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 17 further requires an XGS-PON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li expressly teaches XGPON/10G-GPON OLT operation, stating: "a to-be-deployed next-generation network is a 10G-EPON and a 10G-GPON (also referred to as XGPON), and supports a rate of 10 Gbit/s" and "an optical line terminal in the XGPON uses a 1577-nanometer for sending and a 1270-nanometer for receiving." [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li et al. expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 17, Li expressly teaches XGPON/10G-GPON coexistence with GPON in the same ODN, including the XGPON downstream 1577-nm and upstream 1270-nm wavelengths. [Li et al., p. 2, ¶ [0005]].
Therefore, implementing the SFP-DD host/module combination in an XGS-PON/XGPON OLT would have been an expected application of Li's own upgrade/coexistence problem statement and the SFP-DD standard's higher-density pluggable host interface.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 18 further requires a GPON-OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li expressly teaches a GPON optical line terminal, stating: "an optical line terminal in the GPON uses a 1490-nanometer wavelength for sending and a 1310-nanometer wavelength for receiving" [Li et al., p. 2, ¶ [0005]], and also teaches that "a related communications device such as an optical line terminal (Optical Line Terminal, OLT) mainly includes an optical module, a board on which the optical module is disposed, and a subrack." [Li et al., p. 2, ¶ [0004]].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module
system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 18, Li expressly teaches GPON OLT operation and identifies the GPON downstream 1490-nm and upstream 1310-nm wavelengths. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]].
A skilled artisan would have included a GPON-OLT embodiment because GPON is the legacy service that the Li coexistence system is designed to preserve while adding next-generation PON service. Using SFP-DD for that GPON OLT host would have predictably increased module density without changing the GPON wavelength/service operation.
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above, except wherein claim 19 further requires a Multi-PON OLT comprising at least one SFP-DD transceiver host according to claim 15. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Li teaches coexistence of multiple PON services in the same ODN and a combo optical module/OLT/PON system, stating that "both a GPON service and an XGPON service exist" in the same optical distribution network and that WDM is used to multiplex upstream and downstream wavelengths. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]]. Li further teaches at least two of GPON, XGPON,
25G-GPON, and 50G-GPON optical modules in the plurality of optical network units. [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the recited host/OLT feature because Li expressly teaches OLT optical modules and multi-PON coexistence, while SFP-DD MSA provides the standardized higher-density host, connector, cage, and module system. Replacing an older pluggable host with the known SFP-DD host would have predictably increased density and provided the known two-channel SFP-DD interface while preserving the known PON optical transmission and reception functions. Therefore, the subject matter of this claim would have been obvious.
For claim 19, the Multi-PON OLT limitation is the natural result of combining Li's coexistence teaching with SFP-DD's higher-density pluggable host.
Li teaches a same optical distribution network in which both GPON and XGPON services exist and teaches WDM to multiplex upstream and downstream wavelengths. [Li, p. 2, ¶ [0005]].
Li further teaches a plurality of optical network units including at least two of GPON, XGPON, 25G-GPON, and 50G-GPON optical modules. [Li, p. 7, ¶ [0060]].
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement a Multi-PON OLT with the SFP-DD host to reduce the number of separate OLT optical modules, reduce external coexistence hardware, and improve port density with predictable results.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Lin and Applied, further in view of SFP-DD MSA Specification Rev. 4.2 and Hung et al. (US20130230278A1).
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Soto as discussed above. For purposes of prior-art rejection only, and without withdrawing any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 112(d), claim 10 is interpreted as depending from claim 5 because claim 10 recites module/case structure. Claim 10 further requires that the case comprises at least one SC Hexa-BOSA support and at least a case spacer to accommodate installation of at least one Hexa-BOSA.
Hung teaches the pluggable optical transceiver case/support structure. Hung states in the Abstract: "A pluggable optical transceiver includes: a top housing; a bottom housing; and an optical-electrical assembly enclosed by the top housing and the bottom housing. The optical-electrical assembly includes a substrate; at least a transmitting optoelectronic component disposed on the substrate; at least a receiving optoelectronic component disposed on the substrate; interface integrated circuits disposed on the substrate; a pluggable electrical interface disposed on the substrate and electrically connected with the interface integrated circuits; and a coupling optical system." [Hung, Abstract, p. 1.]
Hung further teaches that conventional SFP/SFP+ transceivers include separately packaged TOSA/ROSA optical subassemblies soldered to a PCB with laser driver IC and related circuitry. [Hung, p. 1, ¶ [0004].]
SFP-DD MSA teaches the SFP-DD cage/module environment and the need for mechanical module alignment. SFP-DD MSA states that implementations compliant with dimensions, mounting, insertion, bezel, module, cable plug, cage, and connector requirements ensure mechanical interchangeability. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.1.] It further provides the module/cage drawings and mechanical definition. [SFP-DD MSA, pp. 37-44, Chapter 6, FIGS. 19-23].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an SC Hexa-BOSA support and a case spacer because the multi-channel BOSA/Hexa-BOSA must be mechanically held in a fixed position inside the standardized SFP-DD module case and aligned with the SC optical connector and the HSEI/PCB. Such supports/spacers are routine mechanical implementation features used to maintain alignment, reduce movement during insertion/removal, and fit the optical subassembly inside a constrained pluggable module. Therefore, claim 10 would have been obvious.
The motivation for claim 10 is further strengthened by the mechanical realities of the claimed Hexa-BOSA. A multi-channel optical subassembly with multiple TO-can packages, wavelength filters, and an SC optical coupling receptacle must be mechanically supported and spaced so the optical axes, filters, and receptacle remain aligned during insertion, operation, and removal from the SFP-DD host cage.
Hung teaches the known use of top/bottom housings and an optical-electrical assembly in a pluggable optical transceiver. [Hung, Abstract, p. 1; FIGS. 2, 23-25].
SFP-DD MSA teaches mechanical interchangeability and module/cage alignment. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 9, sec. 3.1; pp. 37-44, Chapter 6].
Therefore, providing a support and spacer for the SC Hexa-BOSA is a predictable mechanical implementation required to package the known optical subassembly in the known SFP-DD case.
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 10 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Hung as discussed above, except wherein claim 11 further requires that the SC Hexa-BOSA support is made from a plastic material. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Hung teaches optical transceiver housings/support structures for optical-electrical assemblies and teaches low-cost optical transceiver construction. [Hung, p. 1, ¶ [0003]-[0004], FIGS. 2, 23-25.]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the recited material or mechanical structure because pluggable optical transceivers must protect internal optical-electrical assemblies, provide repeatable insertion/extraction from a host cage, maintain optical alignment, and satisfy mechanical and thermal requirements. Plastic supports and metal housings/pull mechanisms are predictable known alternatives selected according to manufacturability, strength, thermal performance, EMI shielding, and user handling. The
claimed feature is therefore a routine mechanical implementation in the known pluggable optical transceiver environment and would have been obvious.
For claim 11, plastic is a predictable material choice for an internal optical-subassembly support because such a support primarily positions and retains the optical subassembly while providing manufacturability, dimensional control, insulation, and reduced cost. Hung teaches a pluggable optical transceiver having internal optical-electrical assemblies and coupling systems within a housing. [Hung, p. 1, Abstract; FIGS. 23-25].
A skilled artisan would have used plastic for the SC Hexa-BOSA support when metal strength or thermal conduction is not required, because plastic supports are conventional in optical module packaging and provide predictable support/alignment functions.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 10 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Hung as discussed above, except wherein claim 12 further requires that the case further comprises a bottom part, a top part, one actuator tine adapted for extraction of the module from a host case, and a pull-tab to allow manual pull of the module. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Hung expressly teaches a top housing and bottom housing enclosing an optical-electrical assembly. [Hung, Abstract, p. 1; FIG. 2].
SFP-DD MSA states: "The SFP-DD module and cage support both a pull tab and a bail latch solution. Details on bail latch retention and extraction specifications can be found in SFF-8432." [SFP-DD MSA, p. 37, sec. 6.1].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the recited material or mechanical structure because pluggable optical transceivers must protect internal optical-electrical assemblies, provide repeatable insertion/extraction from a host cage, maintain optical alignment, and satisfy mechanical and thermal requirements. Plastic supports and metal housings/pull mechanisms are predictable known alternatives selected according to manufacturability, strength, thermal performance, EMI shielding, and user handling. The claimed feature is therefore a routine mechanical implementation in the known pluggable optical transceiver environment and would have been obvious.
For claim 12, the bottom part, top part, actuator tine, and pull-tab are not new optical communication functions but known pluggable-module extraction and housing features. Hung expressly teaches top and bottom housing parts enclosing the optical-electrical assembly. [Hung, Abstract, p. 1; FIG. 2].
SFP-DD MSA expressly recognizes pull-tab and bail-latch extraction solutions. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 37, sec. 6.1].
A skilled artisan would have included these structures because an SFP-DD module must be repeatedly inserted into and extracted from a host cage while protecting the internal optical/electrical components and maintaining connector alignment.
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 10 are taught by Li, Lin, Applied, SFP-DD and Hung as discussed above, except wherein claim 13 further requires that the support, case spacer, bottom and top parts, actuator tine, and pull-tab are made from metal, optionally zinc alloys, zamak 2, zamak 3, or aluminum. However, within analogous art, the cited references teach this additional feature.
Hung teaches that the top housing and bottom housing can be metal, reciting: "The pluggable optical transceiver of claim 1, wherein the top housing and the bottom housing are made of metal." [Hung, p. 41, claim 14].
SFP-DD MSA teaches mechanical and thermal requirements of the module/cage system. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 1, Abstract; pp. 37-44, Chapter 6]
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the recited material or mechanical structure because pluggable optical transceivers must protect internal optical-electrical assemblies, provide repeatable insertion/extraction from a host cage, maintain optical alignment, and satisfy mechanical and thermal requirements. Plastic supports and metal housings/pull mechanisms are predictable known alternatives selected according to manufacturability, strength, thermal performance, EMI shielding, and user handling. The claimed feature is therefore a routine mechanical implementation in the known pluggable optical transceiver environment and would have been obvious.
For claim 13, selecting metal, zinc alloy, zamak, or aluminum for the case and extraction structures would have been an obvious material-selection choice.
Hung expressly claims metal top and bottom housings. [Hung, p. 41, claim 14].
SFP-DD MSA imposes mechanical and thermal requirements on the module/cage system. [SFP-DD MSA, p. 1, Abstract; pp. 37-45, Chapter 6].
A skilled artisan would have selected metal or metal alloys for the top/bottom case and pull/extraction features to provide predictable mechanical strength, EMI shielding, dimensional stability, and heat spreading in the compact SFP-DD module environment.
The rejection above relies on pre-effective-filing-date patent and standards references for the substantive obviousness grounds. Later product datasheets, if present in the search record, are not necessary to the rejection and are not relied upon as primary prior art for establishing the claimed limitations.
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