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 Objections
Claims 1-4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1, line 10 recites the typographical error “is be reduced”.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are therefore objected to for the same reason(s) as indicated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rack" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “trail” in claim 1 has the accepted meaning, “a marked or established path or route especially through a forest or mountainous region.” (Merriam-Webster) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “a trail observed at a patch panel for the plurality of leaf switch ports”.
Regarding Claim 1, The term “easy to observe” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “easy to observe”.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, The term “fast transposition” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “fast transposition”.
Regarding Claim 2, The term “simpler deployment” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “simpler” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “simpler deployment”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Semple GB2493984A (hereinafter Semple) is considered to be the closest prior art reference of record. Semple teaches a structured cabling system (Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of leaf switch ports (patch panel ports, Page 1, lines 8-15); a plurality of server node ports (network switch ports, Page 1, lines 8-15); and a plurality of patch cords, trunk cables and patching components (patch panel ports are connected through cabling (typically, but not essentially, under floor cabling) to specific telecommunications devices, Page 1, lines 8-15) configured to follow a coherent color and labeling scheme (Current convention distinguishes the data type carried by cable colour, for example grey cables carry data and blue voice communications, Page 1, lines 8-15) wherein each port of plurality of server node ports is grouped and assigned to a color depending on a node order or location on the rack (Current convention distinguishes the data type carried by cable colour, for example grey cables carry data and blue voice communications, Page 1, lines 8-15).
Semple does not teach the coherent color and labeling scheme to implement optical communication network topologies, and further wherein a trail observed at a patch panel for the plurality of leaf switch ports follow a uniform vertical color pattern, the vertical pattern matching a desired logical network topology, and wherein the vertical pattern is easy to observe so a risk of misplacing during the installation is be reduced. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Semple to include such features in view of any of the cited prior art references of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID W LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-7692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10-6.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571)272-3078. 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.
/DAVID W LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights