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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. patent 12,107,775 (hereinafter ‘775). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, ‘775 discloses:
A modular network element (claim 1; col. 29; lines 62-63), comprising:
a plurality of modules each comprising a plurality of faceplate ports connected to
fabric circuitry configured to perform Ethernet switching (claim 1; col. 29; lines 64… col. 30; line 6; and claim 11; lines 53-56); and a cabled backplane providing connectivity between the plurality of modules, the cabled backplane includes each module of the plurality of modules having a set of the
plurality of faceplate ports interconnected to other modules of the plurality of modules (claim 1; col. 30; lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 20, ‘775 discloses: A modular network element (claim 1; col. 29; lines 62-63), comprising: a plurality of line modules each comprising a plurality of faceplate ports connected to fabric circuitry configured to perform Ethernet switching (claim 1; col. 29; lines 64… col. 30; line 6; and claim 11; lines 53-56);
at least one core module comprising a plurality of switch modules configured to
perform Ethernet switching (claim 11; col. 30; lines 53-56); and
a cabled backplane providing connectivity between the plurality of line modules and
the at least core module (claim 19; col. 31; lines 13-15), the cabled backplane includes each line module of the plurality of line modules having a set of the plurality of faceplate ports interconnected to at least one core module (claim 13; col. 30; lines 62-64).
Claims 2-19 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. patent 12,107,775 (hereinafter ‘775.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the 20claimed 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 0claimed 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist et al. (US 2014/0360752, hereinafter Sechrist) in view of Breakstone et al. (US 2017/0150621, hereinafter Breakstone).
Regarding claim 1, Sechrist discloses a modular network element (fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of modules (102 & 104; para 0024) each comprising a plurality of faceplate ports (front I/O of 102 & 104 at 128; para 0029) connected to
fabric circuitry configured to perform switching (para 0029-0030;104 is a network switch); and
a cabled backplane (para 0024-0025; cable backplane system – 106, 116, 112 and 120) providing connectivity between the plurality of modules (para 0025; cables connector assemblies 106 provide connectivity between different modules), the
cabled backplane includes each module of the plurality of modules (para 0002; 0027 and 0036; twin axial /cable rack/midplane) having a set of the
plurality of faceplate ports interconnected to other modules of the plurality of modules (para 0008 -0009; cables to connect different lineboxes).
Sechrist does not explicitly disclose that the switching is an Ethernet switching.
In an analogous art, Breakstone discloses that that the switching is an Ethernet switching (para 0138; 0141 and 0143; Ethernet switch). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist’s method/system by having Breakstone’s disclosure in order to improve local network performance by reducing network congestion.
Regarding claim 2, Sechrist discloses wherein the plurality of modules include a
plurality of line modules (para 0024; line cards 102) and at least one core module configured to interconnect the plurality of line modules (para 0024; The cable backplane system 100 interconnects line cards 102 and switch cards 104 using cable connector assemblies 106).
Regarding claim 4, Sechrist discoses wherein the at least one core module includes a chassis supporting a plurality of switch modules (para 0026; chassis 110 may include structures for guiding, supporting and/or securing line cards and switch cards).
Regarding claim 7, Sechrist discoses wherein the plurality of faceplate ports support pluggable modules (para 0058), supporting optical or electrical connections (para 0028 and 0039).
Regarding claim 8, Sechrist discoses wherein the plurality of faceplate ports include Twinax connections (para 0036; twin axial).
Regarding claim 20, Sechrist discloses a modular network element (fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of line modules (para 0024; line cards 102) each comprising a plurality of faceplate ports (para 0026; and 0030; each 102 is a pluggable line card with a front face at the front of the chassis 110) fabric circuitry configured to perform Ethernet switching (para 0029-0030;104 is a network switch);
at least one core module comprising a plurality of switch modules (para 0025; switch cards); and
a cabled backplane (para 0024-0025; cable backplane system – 106, 116, 112 and 120) providing connectivity between the plurality of line modules (para 0025; cables connector assemblies 106 provide connectivity between different line modules), the
cabled backplane includes each line module of the plurality of line modules (para 0002; 0027 and 0036; twin axial /cable rack/midplane) having a set of the
plurality of faceplate ports interconnected to at least one core module (para 0008 -0009; cables to connect different lineboxes).
Sechrist does not explicitly disclose that the switch modules are configured to perform Ethernet switching.
In an analogous art, Breakstone discloses that the switch modules are configured to perform Ethernet switching (para 0138; 0141 and 0143; Ethernet switch). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist’s method/system by having Breakstone’s disclosure in order to improve local network performance by reducing network congestion.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Johnsen et al. (US 2008/0315985, hereinafter Johnsen).
Regarding claim 3, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one core module has a larger height than the plurality of line modules.
In an analogous art, Johnsen discloses wherein the at least one core module has a larger height than the plurality of line modules (para 0076-0078).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Johnsen’s disclosure in order to adjust different components to accommodate different components of a semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 6, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly wherein the plurality of modules are rack mounted and at least two of the plurality of modules include different sizes.
In an analogous art, Johnsen discloses wherein the plurality of modules are rack mounted and at least two of the plurality of modules include different sizes (para 0076-0078). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Johnsen’s disclosure in order to adjust different components to accommodate different components of a semiconductor device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Pan et al. (US 2013/0071117, hereinafter Pan).
Regarding claim 5, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules interconnected to one another in a mesh.
In an analogous art, Pan discloses wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules interconnected to one another in a mesh (para 0049-0050). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Pan’s disclosure in order to provide seamless roaming and easy expansion.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Jacob Da Silva et al. (US 2013/0077621, hereinafter Jacob).
Regarding claim 9, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly wherein the plurality of modules are physically separate from one another and managed as a single network element.
In an analogous art, Jacob discloses wherein the plurality of modules are physically separate from one another and managed as a single network element (para 0036-0037). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Jacob’s disclosure in order to improve the management of a communication system by incorporating various types of modules into a single network.
Regarding claim 10, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein a chassis management protocol is implemented between the plurality of modules.
In an analogous art, Jacob discloses wherein a chassis management protocol is implemented between the plurality of modules (para 0035; 0042 and 0052). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Jacob’s disclosure in order to improve the management of a communication system by incorporating various types of modules into a single network.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sechrist/Breakstone/Jacob in view of Chidambaram et al. (US 7843906, hereinafter Chidambaram).
Regarding claim 11, Sechrist/Breakstone/Jacob does not explicitly disclose wherein the chassis management protocol implements timing synchronization, presence, status, ownership, interrupts, reset, power, and position identification.
In an analogous art, Chidambaram discloses wherein the chassis management protocol implements timing synchronization (col. 80; lines 60-67), presence (col. 87; lines 8-15), status (col. 44; lines 1-5), ownership (col. 82; lines 49-50), interrupts (col. 67; lines 47-55), reset (col. 91; liens 15-20), power (col. 87; lines 39-50; and col. 91; lines 16-35), and position identification (col. 74; lines 62-65). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone/Jacob’s method/system by having Chidambaram’s disclosure in order to improve the performance, efficiency and utility of the network.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sechrist/Breakstone in view of CaraDonna et al. (US 2015/0026077, hereinafter CaraDonna).
Regarding claim 12, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein
the modular network element is expanding by adding a new module to the plurality of modules and a modification of the cabled backplane with the new module included therein.
In an analogous art, CaraDonna discloses wherein the modular network element is expanding by adding a new module to the plurality of modules and a modification of the cabled backplane with the new module included therein (para 0022; 0042; 0044). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone/Jacob’s method/system by having CaraDonna’s disclosure in order to improve the capacity of the network.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Pieree et al. (US 2012/0133510, hereinafter Pieree).
Regarding claim 13, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules interconnected to one another in a mesh, and wherein the modular network element is expanding by adding a new core module in between the plurality of line modules and a modification of the cabled backplane with the new core module included therein between the plurality of line modules.
In an analogous art, Pieree discloses wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules interconnected to one another in a mesh (para 0089; and 0097-0098), and wherein the modular network element is expanding by adding a new core module in between the plurality of line modules and a modification of the cabled backplane with the new core module included therein between the plurality of line modules (para 0089-0091 and 0094). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Pieree’s disclosure in order to improve the scalability of the network.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Goli et al. (US 2017/0227944, hereinafter Goli).
Regarding claim 15, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of modules include a display which provides a slot number based on a relative position in a rack.
In an analogous art, Goli discoses wherein the plurality of modules include a display which provides a slot number based on a relative position in a rack (para 0016 and 0018). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Goli’s disclosure in order to improve the troubleshoot of the network by individually identifying different components.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Laufer et al. (US 2014/0268599, hereinafter Laufer).
Regarding claim 16, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of modules include at least two modules having a different pitch.
In an analogous art, Laufer discoses wherein the plurality of modules include at
least two modules having a different pitch (Para 0011-0014 and 0085-0086). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Laufer’s disclosure in order to address different requirements of the network.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Johnsen et al. (US 2008/0315985, hereinafter Johnsen).
Regarding claim 17, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of modules include at least two modules having one or more of a different number of faceplate ports and a different type of pluggable optics.
In an analogous art, Johnsen discloses wherein the plurality of modules include at least two modules having one or more of a different number of faceplate ports and a different type of pluggable optics (para 0050-0051; 0062; 0064; 0075). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Johnsen’s disclosure in order to address different requirements of the network.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Petrick (US 2017/0142689, hereinafter Petrick).
Regarding claim 14, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the cabled backplane includes Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs).
In an analogous art, Petrick discloses wherein the cabled backplane includes Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) (para 0043; LAG). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Petrick’s disclosure in order to improve the capacity of the network.
Regarding claim 15, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules and at least one server module for compute or storage resources.
In an analogous art, Petrick discloses wherein the plurality of modules include a plurality of line modules and at least one server module for compute or storage resources (para 0003-0004; 0035 and 0037). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Petrick’s disclosure in order to improve the capacity of the network.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sechrist/Breakstone in view of Braun (US 2015/0117860, hereinafter Braun).
Regarding claim 19, Sechrist/Breakstone does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of faceplate ports include at least one Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) interface.
In an analogous art, Braun discloses wherein the plurality of faceplate ports include at least one Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) interface (para 0023; 0038 and 0040; DWDM). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sechrist/Breakstone’s method/system by having Braun’s disclosure in order to maximize the utilization of network resources to improve the usage.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMINA CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-7102. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday (7:30 a.m. to 5.00p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMINA F CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
