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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawyer (US 2022/0264759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 10, 16, Sawyer teaches A network device comprising: an enclosure comprising a chassis (reference numeral 756 in Figure 29A) and a front panel (reference numeral 754 in Figure 29A); and a switch card assembly (reference numeral 752 in Figure 29A) vertically arranged within the chassis in parallel relation to the front panel, the switch card assembly comprising: a switch printed circuit board (PCB) (reference numeral 752 in Figure 29A) ; a connector cage (reference numeral 870 in Figure 43) mounted on the switch PCB and comprising a plurality of pluggable module connectors (reference numeral 868a-868c in Figure 43), wherein the pluggable module connectors are mounted on the switch PCB in an orientation to receive pluggable modules along a direction perpendicular to the switch PCB (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 50); first and second hold-down features (reference numeral 13628 in Figure 136 and/or “screws” as in paragraph [0406]) respectively attached to a top side and a bottom side of the connector cage, the first and second hold-down features fastened to the switch PCB to secure the connector cage in position on the switch PCB (e.g. “fasten the front lattice structure 13606, the printed circuit board 13604, the substrate 13602, the rear lattice structure 13608” as in paragraph [0715]); and at least one stiffener plate (reference numeral 13626, 13610 in Figure 136; e.g. “Bolster Plate” and/or “Guide rail” as illustrated in Figure 129) attached to either the top side or bottom side of the connector cage to reduce flexure of the connector cage.
Regarding claim 4, 13, 19, Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, wherein the stiffener plate attaches to the connector cage at a plurality of attachment points (e.g. “Bolster Plate” and/or “Guide rail” and/or 12908 as illustrated in Figure 129; e.g. via the plurality of reference numeral 13626, 13610 in Figure 136).
Regarding claim 5, 14, 20, Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, wherein the connector cage comprises a plurality of pluggable module connector sub-cages (reference numeral 12912 in Figure 129; reference numeral 868a-868c in Figure 43; reference numeral 906 in Figure 49) , wherein the stiffener plate has attachment points to a top side of each of the pluggable module connector sub-cages (e.g. reference numeral 12900, “Bolster Plate” and/or “Guide rail” and/or 12908 as illustrated in Figure 129).
Regarding claim 6,Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, further comprising a first stiffener plate attached to the top side of the connector cage and a second stiffener plate attached to the bottom side of the connector cage (e.g. reference numeral 12900, 12912, “Bolster Plate” and/or “Guide rail” as illustrated in Figure 129).
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 claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of GUETIG (Publication No.: US 2020/0153163 A1).
Regarding claim 2, 11, 17, Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, wherein the connector cage includes press fit pins (reference numeral 13628 in Figure 138) that align to and pass through corresponding through holes formed through the switch PCB to control positioning of the connector cage on the switch PCB (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 140). Sawyer differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to specifically teach that the press fit pins include shoulders that land on an upper surface of the switch PCB to provide spacing between the connector cage and the switch PCB. However, GUETIG teaches that such cage pin structures are well known in the art (reference numeral 1190 in Figure 11). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize a cage pin structure such as that taught by Sawyer in order to allow the cage to be mounted to a PCB (paragraph [0079]) with a gap between the PCB and cage (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize press fit pins that include shoulders that land on an upper surface of the switch PCB as taught by GUETIG in Sawyer to provide spacing between the connector cage and the switch PCB.
Claim(s) 3, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Wilcox (Patent No.: US 10,073,230 B2).
Regarding claim 3, 12, 18, Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach that each of the first and second hold-down features includes one or more tabs that engage with corresponding tab slots formed in the top and bottom sides of the connector cage, respectively. However, Wilcox teaches that such hold-down features are well known in the art (e.g. as illustrated in Figures 6H-6K). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize the claimed hold-down features in order to allow for attachment of a cage and a circuit board in a secure manner (column 10 lines 16-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize one or more tabs that engage with corresponding tab slots formed in the top and bottom sides of the connector cage as taught by Wilcox in Sawyer.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Heyd (Publication No.: US 2016/0073544 A1).
Regarding claim 7, 15, Sawyer teaches The network device of claim 1, wherein each pluggable module connector includes an airflow channel (e.g. “space” “hollow tube” as in paragraph [0671]; “gaps between adjacent fiber guides 12510 in the vertical direction to allow air to flow through” as in paragraph [0680]; e.g. “Hollow Tubes” as illustrated in Figure 126A; reference numeral 12408 in Figure 129) that extends between a front end of the pluggable module connector and a back end of the pluggable module connector. Sawyer differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to specifically teach that the switch PCB includes an airflow cutout substantially aligned with the airflow channel at the back end of said each pluggable module connector for airflow therethrough, wherein a line of connector pins of said each pluggable module connector lie substantially parallel along a long axis of the respective airflow cutout. However, Heyd teaches that this concept is well known in the art (reference numeral 194, 1701, and the pins above and below reference numeral 1701 in Figure 17). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize airflow cutouts as claimed in order to allow for airflow through a midplane assembly and into modules in the front and rear of a storage assembly such as chassis (e.g. as in paragraph [0082] of Heyd). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a PCB that includes airflow cutout substantially aligned with the airflow channel at the back end of said each pluggable module connector for airflow therethrough, wherein a line of connector pins of said each pluggable module connector lie substantially parallel along a long axis of the respective airflow cutout in Sawyer as taught by Heyd.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Heyd (Publication No.: US 2016/0073544 A1) and Ishiwa (Publication No.: US 2002/0104681 A1)
Regarding claim 8, 9, The network device of claim 1, wherein each pluggable module connector includes an airflow channel (e.g. “space” “hollow tube” as in paragraph [0671]; “gaps between adjacent fiber guides 12510 in the vertical direction to allow air to flow through” as in paragraph [0680]; e.g. “Hollow Tubes” as illustrated in Figure 126A; reference numeral 12408 in Figure 129) that extends between a front end of the pluggable module connector and a back end of the pluggable module connector. Sawyer differs from the claimed invention in two manners.
First, Sawyer fails to specifically teach that the switch PCB includes an airflow cutout substantially aligned with the airflow channel at the back end of said each pluggable module connector for airflow therethrough. However, Heyd teaches that this concept is well known in the art (reference numeral 1701 in Figure 17). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize airflow cutouts as claimed in order to allow for airflow through a midplane assembly and into modules in the front and rear of a storage assembly such as chassis (e.g. as in paragraph [0082] of Heyd). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a PCB that includes airflow cutout substantially aligned with the airflow channel at the back end of said each pluggable module connector for airflow therethrough in Sawyer as taught by Heyd.
Second, Sawyer fails to specifically teach that an EMI blocking or absorbing element is disposed within the airflow cutout to mitigate EMI radiation produced when a pluggable module is received in said each pluggable module connector and is operating. However, Ishiwa teaches that this concept is well known in the art (reference numeral 4 in Figure 1c; e.g. “plating layer is formed on the inner surface of the through-holes” as in paragraph [0009], [0046], [0047]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to dispose an EMI blocking or absorbing element within the airflow cutout in order to ensure improved electromagnetic noise shielding function and intercircuit crosstalk withstanding performance (as in paragraph [0010], [0030], [0059] of Ishiwa). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to dispose an EMI blocking or absorbing element within the airflow cutout as taught by Ishiwa in Sawyer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, 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.
/AGUSTIN BELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights