DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 “signal connector”, “first position”, and “second position” must be shown and reference character(s) provided therefor on the drawings and in the specification, 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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations: “when in the first position, the floating portion is not in thermal connection with a (the) heat sink”. These limitations are not supported by the disclosure, since in the first position, the floating portion (112) is in thermal connection with the heat sink (125), at least via the frame (120) of the coupling device (100), thermal pad (119), cage (6), and remaining components of the structure as depicted on Fig. 6 and explained in relevant portions of the specification.
The remaining dependent claims have been also rejected since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the independent claims 1 and 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations: “wherein the coupling device comprises a frame extending over the set of cages, wherein the floating portion for each cage is attached to the frame; wherein the coupling device is integrally formed with the frame” (emphasis added). Since the “frame” is a part of the “coupling device”, it’s not clear how said “coupling device” can be “integrally formed” with itself ? This renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the frame” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, it’s not clear why an article “a” is used before “said floating portion” in line 3 of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the coupling” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims recites an ungrammatical and uncomprehensible clause: “a first bend a second bend [sic], wherein the first bend a second bend are configured to [sic]”. This renders the claims indefinite.
Furter, regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitation “the volume of the cage” lacks proper antecedent basis, since it hasn’t been properly positively set forth earlier in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 11, it’s not clear why limitations “a signal connector” and “a heat sink” (ll. 8-9) redundantly recited with an article “a”, since these limitations have been previously introduced in ll. 1-2 and 8 of the claim. This renders the claim indefinite, since it’s not clear whether said “signal connector” and “heat sink” recited in ll. 8-9 of the claim are the same as those previously recited in ll. 1-2 and 8 of the claim or not.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitations: “wherein the one or more floating portion is configured to extend over an open area of the set of cages”. These limitations are inconsistent and produce ambiguity and indefiniteness due to singular/plural mismatch, since “one or more floating portions” includes a single “floating portion”. However, the limitations “over an open area of the set of cages” implies that said single “floating portion” extends over multiple open areas of multiple cages. However, it’s not the case according to the current disclosure, i.e., there are multiple “floating portions”, each for the single open area of the single cage from the set of cages (e.g., see Figs. 2-4, 7, 8, etc.). Therefore, the claim should be amended accordingly to recite, e.g., “wherein the one or more floating portions are configured to extend over one or more open areas of one or more cages from the set of cages” or similar.
Regarding claim 12, the claim redundantly recites “a frame” with an article “a”
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitations: “the floating portion is coupled to the cage via one edge of the cage, with the remaining edges of the floating portion are unconnected to the cage”. These limitations render the claim indefinite, since they are inconsistent by reciting the “one edge of the cage”, while the “remaining edges” are recited as belonging to the “floating portion”. Furter, according to the disclosure, said “floating portion” is coupled to the “frame” of the “coupling device” (i.e., not to the “cage”). Furter, the claim recites the limitation “the floating portion”, whereas parent claim 11 recites “one or more floating portion”.
Furthermore, claims 11 and 12 on numerous instances (5 instances) recite an ungrammatical limitation “one or more floating portion” [sic]. The correct limitation must be “one or more floating portions”. The same goes for the limitation “one or more thermal pad” [sic] in claim 5.
The Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the fact that claims are generally poorly written and contain numerous problems and informalities. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any remaining errors and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims. Applicant must carefully review all pending claims and amend them accordingly in order to present them without any artifacts of the incorrect translation from foreign documents. Verbose passages should be streamlined, and sentences with non-standard sentence construction or grammar should be editorially improved. No new matter should be introduced (37 CFR 1.125(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2019/0273340 to D’Inca et al. (cited on IDS, hereafter “D’Inca”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D’Inca in view of CN 113885140 to Xiao et al. (cited on IDS, hereafter “Xiao”) and US 2005/0195565 to Bright.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, as best understood, D’Inca discloses (Figs. 2-3c) an interface module (200), comprising: a set of cages (206) (par. [0041]), each cage configured to guide an optical/SFP signal connector ((250), par. [0032]) towards an interface (208) for connection with the signal connector; wherein each cage of the set of cages comprises an open area (accommodating members (212, 214, 216)) facing a heat sink (202); a coupling device (212, 214, 216) configured to attach to the set of cages and extend over the open area of the cages, wherein the coupling device comprises a floating portion (212) for each cage, wherein the floating portion is configured to move from a first position (Fig. 3a) to a second position (Fig. 3c) upon insertion of the signal connector into the cage, wherein, when in the first position, the floating portion is not in thermal connection with the heat sink (Fig. 3a), and wherein, when in the second position, the floating portion is in thermal connection with the heat sink (Fig. 3c).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, D’Inca discloses (Figs. 2-3c) a coupling device (212, 214, 216) for a set of cages (206) (par. [0041]), each configured to guide a signal connector (250) towards an interface (208) for connection with the signal connector; the coupling device comprising: a frame (216); one or more floating portion (212), wherein the one or more floating portion is configured to extend over an open area (accommodating members (212, 214, 216)) of the set of cages facing a heat sink (202), wherein the one or more floating portion is configured to move from a first position (Fig. 3a) to a second position (Fig. 3c) upon insertion of a signal connector into a cage, wherein, when in the first position, the floating portion is not in thermal connection with a heat sink (Fig. 3a), and wherein, when in the second position, the floating portion is in thermal connection with the heat sink (Fig. 3c).
Alternatively, regarding claims 1 and 11, Xiao discloses (Figs. 1-8) a coupling device (4, 41, 42) comprising a frame (41) and floating portions (411) and configured to be attached to the set of cage(s) (1) to cover open area(s) (11) and to thermally connect to a heat sink (5) via thermal pad(s) (2).
Further, Bright discloses (Figs. 3-7) a coupling device (430, 450) comprising a frame (432, 434) and one or more floating portions (450) and configured to attach to a set of cages (400) and extend over an open area of the cages (104), in order to mount and thermally connect the heat sinks (150) to the heat producing electronic modules (102) to be cooled.
Furter, D’Inca in par. [0041] teaches that “a single PCB may be connected to one or more cages, and more than one PCB may be provided in a single interface module. In these embodiments, a single housing may be provided encasing (and providing a heat sink for) multiple cages”.
Therefore, in vies of the aforementioned teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided in D’Inca a single coupling device comprising a frame and one or more floating portions and configured to attach to a set of cages and extend over open area(s) of the cages, wherein one or more floating portions of the coupling device are configured to extend over the open area(s) of the cages, as taught by the combined teachings of Xiao and Bright, in order to predictably provide a single coupling device, thus simplifying the assembly of the apparatus with multiple (set of) cages. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, D’Inca discloses that the interface module (200) comprises one or more thermal pad (214) configured to provide a thermal connection between a said floating portion (212) and the heat sink (202).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood , D’Inca discloses that the coupling of the floating portion (212) to the cage (206) is an edge (216) that is proximal to an opening (211)of the cage through which the signal connector (250) is insertable (Figs. 2, 3a).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, as best understood, D’Inca discloses that the floating portion (212) comprises a first bend a second bend (there are two bends at (216) on Fig. 3a), wherein the first bend a second bend are configured to locate the floating portion (212) within the volume of the cage (206), (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, D’Inca as modified above discloses (Figs. 2-3c) that the coupling device comprises a frame (216) extending over the set of cages (206), wherein the floating portion (212) for each cage is attached to the frame; wherein the coupling device is integrally formed with the frame. Furter, Bright also discloses (Figs. 3-7) that the coupling device (430) comprises a frame (432, 434) extending over the set of cages (400), wherein the floating portion (450) for each cage is attached to the frame; wherein the coupling device is integrally formed with the frame. Furter, Xiao also discloses (Figs. 1-8) that the coupling device (4, 41, 42) comprising a frame (41) extending over the set of cages (206), wherein the floating portion (212) for each cage is attached to the frame; wherein the coupling device is integrally formed with the frame.
Examiner’s Note: it has been held that the term “integral” (i.e., “integrally formed”) is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. See In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973); see also Board’s decision Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 52 C.C.P.A. 920 (1964).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, D’Inca discloses that the set of cages comprises a plurality of cages (206), (par. [0041]) and the coupling device comprises a plurality of floating portions (212), wherein the coupling device is configured to extend over the plurality of cages (par. 0041]). Furter, Bright also discloses (Figs. 3-7) that the set of cages (400) comprises a plurality of cages (104), and the coupling device (430, 450) comprises a plurality of floating portions (450), wherein the coupling device is configured to extend over the plurality of cages (Figs. 6, 9).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood , D’Inca discloses that the frame (216) comprises an attachment system configured to attach the coupling device (212, 214, 216) to the set of cages (206) (the attachment system is inherently present, since the coupling device (212, 214, 216) is coupled to the cage (206) as can be clearly seen on Fig. 3a). Furter, Xiao also discloses (Figs. 1-8) that the frame (41) comprises an attachment system (42, 43) configured to attach the coupling device (4, 41, 42) to the set of cages (1). Furter, Bright also discloses (Figs. 3-7) that the frame (432, 434) comprises an attachment system (432, 438) configured to attach the coupling device to the set of cages (400).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, D’Inca discloses that the interface module (200) comprises a single thermal pad (214) configured to provide a thermal connection between a plurality of floating portions (212) and the heat sink (202). See also par. [0041] which teaches that “a single PCB may be connected to one or more cages, and more than one PCB may be provided in a single interface module. In these embodiments, a single housing may be provided encasing (and providing a heat sink for) multiple cages”. This teaching implies that a single thermal may be provided for the single heat sink.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a single thermal pad instead of separate ones in D’Inca alone or as modified by Xiao and/or Bright, in order to simplify assembly of the device and reduce number of components, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); and Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, D’Inca discloses that the coupling device (212, 214, 216) further comprises a frame (216) extending over the set of cages (206), wherein the frame supports the one or more floating portion (212), wherein the frame and the one or more floating portion are integrally formed (Fig. 3a). Furter, Xiao also discloses (Figs. 1-8) that the coupling device (4, 41, 42) further comprises a frame (41) extending over the set of cages (1), wherein the frame supports the one or more floating portion (411), wherein the frame and the one or more floating portion are integrally formed.
Examiner’s Note: it has been held that the term “integral” (i.e., “integrally formed”) is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. See In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973); see also Board’s decision Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 52 C.C.P.A. 920 (1964).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, D’Inca discloses (Fig. 3a) that the frame (216) is configured to extend over one or more further sides of the set of cages (206) to provide electromagnetic shielding (since the frame is made of metal, it will inherently provide at least some electromagnetic shielding). Furter, Xiao also discloses (Figs. 1-8) that the frame (41) is configured to extend over one or more further sides of the set of cages (1) to provide electromagnetic shielding (since the frame is made of metal, it will inherently provide at least some electromagnetic shielding). Furter, Bright also discloses (Figs. 3-7) that the frame (432, 434) is configured to extend over one or more further sides (414) of the set of cages (400) to provide electromagnetic shielding (since the frame is made of metal, it will inherently provide at least some electromagnetic shielding).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, D’Inca discloses (Fig. 3a) that the floating portion (212) is coupled to the cage (206) via one edge of the cage (at (216)), with the remaining edges of the floating portion are unconnected to the cage (Figs. 2, 3a; par. [0027]).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various interfaces cooling arrangements, said interfaces comprising set(s) of cages for pluggable electronic/optical modules to be cooled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights