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 external ports must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 20. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations of claims 17 & 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claims 17 & 18. 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.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The examiner is interpreting the recited limitation “breakout” as also being a header in line with the applicant’s disclosure on page 7 last paragraph “breakouts or headers”.
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)(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.
(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) 1-2, 5-8, 11, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1).
A system comprising:
a first cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21);
a second cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21);
a first PCB-side connector (figures 2, 3A & 23A); and
a plurality of cables (154, 194, 840; each cable 194 is composed of two separate cables unnumbered see figures 3A/B), wherein:
a first cable of the plurality of cables is connected to the first cage-side connector (figures 21, 25 & 39) and the first PCB-side connector (figures 1, 2 & 3A), and
a second cable of the plurality of cables is connected to the second cage-side connector (figures 21, 25 & 39) and the first PCB-side connector (figures 1, 2 & 3A).
Claim 2 Little discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a second PCB-side connector (figures 2, 3A & 23A, show multiple PCB (70) side connectors (750)), wherein a third cable of the plurality of cables is connected to the second PCB-side connector and one of the first and second cage-side connectors (e.g., fig. 1, 194 connected to 192/170 and 80).
Claim 5 Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first cage-side connector is one or more of an OSFP connector, a QSFP connector (Abstract “QSFP module”) Abstract , a QSFP-DD connector, and an OSFP-XD connector.
Claim 6 Little the system of claim 1, wherein the first cage-side connector is a QSFP connector (Abstract “QSFP module”).
Claim 7 Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first cage-side connector is configured to mate with one or more of an OSFP pluggable module and a QSFP pluggable module (Abstract “QSFP module”).
Claim 8 Little the system of claim 1, further comprising a second PCB-side connector (figures 3A & 23A show multiple PCB (70, 710) connectors (192/170)), wherein: a third cable (multiple cables in figures 3A & 23A plus other figures) connects the first cage-side connector to the second PCB-side connector (e.g., multiple 750’s), and a fourth cable (multiple cables in figures 3A & 23A) connects the second cage-side connector to the second PCB-side connector (e.g., multiple 750’s).
Claim 11 Little discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising: a third PCB-side connector (figures 3A & 23A show multiple PCB (70, 710) connectors (192/170)); and a fourth PCB-side connector (figures 3A & 23A show multiple PCB (70, 710) connectors (192/170)), wherein: a fifth cable connects the first cage-side connector to the third PCB-side connector, and a sixth cable (multiple cables in figures 3A & 23A) connects the first cage-side connector to the fourth PCB-side connector (e.g., multiple 750’s).
Claim 17 Little discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a third cage-side connector (fig. 1 shows at least 16 cage (80) side connectors, unnumbered), wherein: a third cable (each cable 194 has two cables see for example fig. 3A) connects the first cage-side connector (say top left corner unnumbered connector in fig. 3A) to the first PCB-side connector (192/170).
Claim 18 Little discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a fourth cage-side connector (fig. 3A shows at least 16 cage side connectors, unnumbered), wherein: a third cable (fig. 3A for example shows two cables (first & third) connected to a PCB connector 192/170) connects the first cage-side connector to the first PCB-side connector.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1).
A connection system comprising:
a first cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21);
a second cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21);
a PCB-side connector (figures 2, 3A & 23A); and
a plurality of cables (154, 194, 840), wherein:
a first cable of the plurality of cables is connected to the first cage-side connector (figures 21, 25 & 39) and the PCB-side connector (figures 1, 2 & 3A), and
a second cable of the plurality of cables is connected to the second cage-side connector (figures 21, 25 & 39) and the PCB-side connector (figures 1, 2 & 3A).
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1).
system comprising:
a first external port (fig. 5A 104/105, “lower mating ports 104, 105”);
a second external port (fig. 5A 104/105 “lower mating ports 104, 105”);
a PCB (70, 90, 312, 510, 710); and
a connector system connecting the first external port and the second external port to the PCB (e.g., figures 12A & 23A), the connector system comprising:
a first cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21) connected to the first external port;
a second cage-side connector (figures 4B at 100, 5B & 21) connected to the second external port;
a first PCB-side connector connected to the PCB (e.g., fig. 1); and
a plurality of cables (fig. 1 at 194; fig. 23A at 840), wherein:
a first cable (fig. 1 one of cables 194) of the plurality of cables is connected to the first cage-side connector (unnumbered connectors back of 80) and the PCB (70), and
a second cable (fig. 1 one of cables 194) of the plurality of cables is connected to the second cage- side connector (unnumbered connectors back of 80) and the PCB (70).
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 (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 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) 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1) in view of Annis et al (US9742081)().
Little does not disclose the first PCB-side connector comprises one or more pins in a first pattern and the second PCB-side connector comprises one or more pins in a second pattern.
Annis discloses two PCB-side connectors one comprising one or more pins in a first pattern and the second PCB-side connector comprises one or more pins in a second pattern (Abstract last sentence). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to use two PCB connectors with different pin patterns. One motivation for this would be to expand the applicable uses of the device. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 10 Little discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first PCB-side connector is configured to mate with a first breakout on a PCB, and the second PCB-side connector is configured to mate with a second breakout on the PCB (figure 3A is a good example of first and second PCB side connectors (192) mating with first and second breakouts (170)).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1) in view of Locati (US5129831).
Little does not disclose that the first PCB-side connector comprises one or more keys of a first pattern and wherein the one or more keys of the first pattern align with one or more holes associated with a first breakout on a PCB.
Locati discloses an electrical connector assembly (e.g., fig. 8) wherein a first PCB-side connector (116) comprises one or more keys (24) of a first pattern and wherein the one or more keys of the first pattern align with one or more holes (118) associated with a first breakout on a PCB (122). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to include a keying technique as taught by Locati with the connector system of Little. A motivation for this would be to ensure that an installer does not insert the wrong kind of connector. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Little (US2019/0293884A1).
Little does not disclose that the cables are copper.
At the time the invention was made it would have been routine knowledge to one of ordinary skill have the cabling made with copper. A motivation for choosing copper would be to choose a cabling that is tried and true for many years. Well settled case law has shown that merely selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for its intended use is not grounds for a patent, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 16 Little discloses the first cage-side connector, the second cage-side connector, and the first PCB-side connector are internal to a computing system (last sentence of Abstract & for example figure 3A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 .
Prosecution Insights