US 9523826

US Patent 9523826, titled "Pluggable optical transceiver module," was issued to Applied Optoelectronics Inc. The inventors are Chao-Hung Tsai, Chien-Te Lin, and Che-Shou Yeh. The patent was filed on October 2, 2014, and issued on December 20, 2016.

Abstract:
The patent describes a pluggable optical transceiver module designed to be inserted into a plugging slot. It comprises a main body with two opposite side surfaces and two sliding slots. A sliding component, featuring a linkage arm and two extending arms, is positioned such that the main body resides between the extending arms. Each extending arm includes a second fastening part. The extending arms are configured to slide within the two sliding slots between a fastening position and a releasing position. In the fastening position, two first fastening parts (from the socket) are secured to the module's two second fastening parts. When in the releasing position, the module's two second fastening parts press the socket's first fastening parts farther apart, facilitating release.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim defines a pluggable optical transceiver module for insertion into a socket's plugging slot, where the socket includes two elastic first fastening parts. The module features a main body with two side surfaces and two sliding slots, designed for insertion into the plugging slot. The main body also incorporates at least one limiting space with first and second limiting surfaces. A sliding component, which includes a linkage arm and two extending arms, encloses the main body, with the extending arms sliding within the main body's slots. Each extending arm has a second fastening part and a limited part that moves within the limiting space. The sliding component can be in a fastening position, where the module's second fastening parts engage the socket's first fastening parts, or a releasing position, where the module's second fastening parts push the socket's first fastening parts apart for release. An elastic component is situated within the limiting space, between the first limiting surface and the limited part, and is covered by an extending arm, ensuring it is contained by both the main body and the sliding component.

• Claim 7: This independent claim describes a pluggable optical transceiver module with a main body composed of a connected head part and an inserted part. The main body has two opposing side surfaces and two sliding slots located on these surfaces, extending from the head part to the inserted part. Similar to Claim 1, it includes at least one limiting space, with two bottom surfaces forming the sliding slots that are parallel to the side surfaces. A sliding component, with a linkage arm connecting two extending arms, also encloses the main body. Each extending arm has a second fastening part and a limited part that moves within the limiting space. The extending arms can slide relative to the slots to a fastening position (farther from the head part) and a releasing position (closer to the head part). An elastic component is positioned within the limiting space, between a first limiting surface (closer to the head part) and the limited part, and is covered by an extending arm, thereby being confined by the main body and the sliding component.

Litigation:
The patent US9523826B2 is currently involved in several litigation proceedings. This includes a case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), identified as case 26-101. Additionally, there are two PTAB cases: IPR2026-00093 and IPR2025-00433, both of which were not instituted due to procedural reasons.

US patent 9523826 is involved in the following known litigation:

1. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Molex, LLC

   • Plaintiff(s): Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Molex, LLC
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
   • Case Number: 4:23-cv-04787 (also identified as 3:23-cv-04787 and 5:23-cv-04787 in other listings related to this patent)
   • Filing Date: September 18, 2023
   • Outcome/Current Status: The parties reached a settlement in principle, closing the case after approximately 200 days of litigation. US9523826 was one of six patents asserted in this action.

2. Applied Optoelectronics Inc v. Cambridge Industries Incorporated

   • Plaintiff(s): Applied Optoelectronics Inc
   • Defendant(s): Cambridge Industries Incorporated
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
   • Case Number: 5:24-cv-01010 (also identified as 3:24-cv-01010 in other listings related to this patent)
   • Filing Date: February 20, 2024
   • Outcome/Current Status: The case is ongoing and alleges infringement of US9523826 and other patents.

3. Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Cambridge Industries USA, Inc.
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-00433
   • Filing Date: The exact filing date of the petition is not explicitly stated in the search results, but the Director's decision denying institution was issued on June 26, 2025.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. The PTAB denied institution of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) on June 26, 2025, based on the "settled expectations" doctrine because the patent had been in force for seven years. Cambridge Industries subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Federal Circuit on October 10, 2025, challenging this denial.

4. Cambridge Industries (Petitioner) v. Director of the USPTO (Respondent)

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Cambridge Industries
   • Defendant(s) (Respondent): Director of the USPTO (implicitly, as it is a petition for mandamus)
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
   • Case Number: 26-101
   • Filing Date: October 10, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cambridge Industries, asking the court to reconsider the denial of institution for IPR2025-00433.

5. PTAB Case (IPR2026-00093)

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00093
   • Filing Date: Not readily available from the provided search results.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. Details regarding the petitioner, patent owner, and specific reasons for denial were not found in the search results.

6. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case Numbers 4:24-cv-09041 and 3:24-cv-09041)

   • Details regarding the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing date, or current status for these specific case numbers were not readily available from the conducted searches.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,523,826. This proceeding, IPR2026-00093, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were adjudicated on the merits. This outcome leaves all claims of the patent untested by the PTAB.

IPR2026-00093 — Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial (Not Instituted - Procedural). The petition was denied institution on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the patentability challenges.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer H. Meyer, Kevin W. Turner, and Brian J. Leitten.
• Petition grounds: Accelight Technologies, Inc. and CIG Shanghai, Co., Ltd. challenged claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,523,826 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including US 2011/0081114 A1 (Sargent) in view of US 7,201,520 B2 (Nishimura).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-27. The Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing the factors outlined in [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Fintiv, Inc. and its progeny. Specifically, the Board determined that a co-pending district court litigation involving the same parties and claims weighed against institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the discretionary denial of institution, not by settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: Since institution was denied on discretionary, non-merit-based grounds (specifically Fintiv), this IPR does not establish the patentability of the challenged claims. A future defendant could potentially challenge the same claims on the same or different grounds, although the Fintiv analysis might still present a hurdle if parallel district court litigation exists.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-7) of US Patent 9,523,826 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB in terms of a merits-based final written decision. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00093, filed by Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al., was denied institution. This means the PTAB did not make a determination on the patentability of any claims, and they are all considered patentable as far as the PTAB is concerned for this specific proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2026-00093 did not proceed to a Final Written Decision, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply. This means that Accelight Technologies, Inc. (and its privies) are not barred by statute from raising any grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR. However, depending on the specifics of the Fintiv denial and the parallel litigation, common law principles might still be invoked in certain circumstances, though this is less definitive than statutory estoppel. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for future challenges against claims 1-7.

The patent has only faced one IPR, which was denied institution, so there are no significant "pattern signals" of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or multiple IPRs by the same petitioner. The denial based on Fintiv suggests the patent owner (Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.) successfully argued for deferral to district court proceedings.

Recommended next steps

• Since institution was denied in IPR2026-00093, there are no invalidated claims to reference a Final Written Decision for. The Board's decision denying institution can be found on the PTAB End-to-End system. The denial explicitly states, "For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED as a matter of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)."
• There are no active PTAB proceedings on US9523826 requiring tracking of trial-stage milestones.
• The absence of any PTAB activity that resulted in a merits-based decision suggests that the patent's claims have not been definitively tested for patentability by the PTAB.

Inventors

• Chao-Hung Tsai (Applied Optoelectronics Inc)
• Chien-Te Lin (Applied Optoelectronics Inc)
• Che-Shou Yeh (Applied Optoelectronics Inc)

All inventors were employed by Applied Optoelectronics Inc at the time of filing, as indicated by the original assignment. There is no information to suggest they departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

Applied Optoelectronics Inc. is the original assignee and remains the current ultimate owner. The company ships products embodying the claims, as it is a manufacturer of optical networking products, including optical transceiver modules. Applied Optoelectronics Inc. is an operating company and is currently active.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-09-09 (executed) / recorded 2014-10-02 — Reel 033869/0778
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Tsai, Chao-Hung; Lin, Chien-Te; Yeh, Che-Shou
  • Assignee: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Taiwan
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to company.
• 2015-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2015-07-02 — Reel 036047/0293
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
  • Assignee: East West Bank, California
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan).
• 2017-09-28 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-29 — Reel 044061/0812
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
  • Assignee: Branch Banking and Trust Company, Texas
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan).
• 2017-10-05 (executed) / recorded 2017-10-05 — Reel 044207/0573
  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: East West Bank
  • Assignee: Applied Optoelectronics Inc, Texas
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Release of security interest back to the operating company.
• 2022-11-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-11-16 — Reel 061952/0344
  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Truist Bank (formerly known as Branch Banking and Trust Company)
  • Assignee: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Texas
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Release of security interest back to the operating company (following name change of Branch Banking and Trust Company to Truist Bank).
• 2022-11-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-11-28 — Reel 062003/0523
  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
  • Assignee: CIT Northbridge Credit LLC, New York
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan).
• 2023-11-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-11-20 — Reel 065630/0906
  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: CIT Northbridge Credit LLC
  • Assignee: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Texas
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Release of security interest back to the operating company.
• 2025-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-08-01 — Reel 072338/0695
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
  • Assignee: BOKF, NA D/B/A BOK FINANCIAL, Colorado
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9523826
    2014 : Assigned to Applied Optoelectronics
    2015 : Security interest to East West Bank
    2016 : Patent granted
    2017 : Security interest to BB&T
         : East West Bank releases interest
    2022 : Truist Bank releases interest
         : Security interest to CIT Northbridge
    2023 : CIT Northbridge releases interest
         : Litigation filed against unknown
    2025 : Security interest to BOK Financial

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. All transfers away from Applied Optoelectronics Inc. are security interests to financial institutions, with subsequent releases returning the interest to Applied Optoelectronics Inc. There is no evidence of an outright ownership transfer to a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The assignees involved in security interests (East West Bank, Branch Banking and Trust Company/Truist Bank, CIT Northbridge Credit LLC, BOKF, NA D/B/A BOK FINANCIAL) are financial institutions, not known patent assertion entities.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondent information is not available in the provided Google Patents legal events for any of the recorded assignments.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The recorded assignments primarily represent securitization events (security interests and releases) rather than a series of ownership transfers through multiple chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. Litigation cases are noted as filed in 2023. While there was a Patent Security Agreement with CIT Northbridge Credit LLC executed on 2022-11-16 and recorded on 2022-11-28 (Reel 062003/0523) preceding the 2023 litigation, this was a security interest, not an assignment of ownership for assertion purposes. Applied Optoelectronics Inc remained the owner throughout this period.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Applied Optoelectronics Inc is an active operating company, and there is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings related to these assignments.
7. Privateering — Not present. The patent remains with the operating company, Applied Optoelectronics Inc, with no transfer to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The ownership chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators such as RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent is currently owned by Applied Optoelectronics Inc., an operating company that manufactures optical transceiver modules. The recorded assignments primarily consist of security interests granted to financial institutions and subsequent releases (e.g., Reel 036047/0293 to East West Bank, Reel 044061/0812 to Branch Banking and Trust Company, Reel 062003/0523 to CIT Northbridge Credit LLC, and Reel 072338/0695 to BOKF, NA D/B/A BOK FINANCIAL), indicating the patent is used as collateral for financing rather than being transferred for assertion by a non-practicing entity. The presence of multiple litigation filings originating from 2023 further suggests assertion by the operating company against competitors.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The search results confirm that the USPTO has a "Patent Public Search" tool. While I don't directly interact with a live USPTO database in this environment, the prompt provided the full text of US9523826, which already contains the patent citations. I will proceed with the analysis using the citation data within the provided patent text, as that is the authoritative source for this task.

Prior Art Analysis for US9523826

The following prior art references were cited in US9523826:

1. US7201520B2

• Full Citation: US7201520B2 [cite: US9523826B2]
• Publication/Filing Date: Published on April 10, 2007. The priority date is May 30, 2003. [cite: US9523826B2]
• Brief Description: This patent describes an optical module featuring a mechanism designed for easy release from a corresponding cage or socket. [cite: US9523826B2]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7201520B2 potentially anticipates claims 1 and 7 of US9523826. The title "Optical module having a simple mechanism for releasing from a cage" indicates a device that performs the core function of a pluggable optical transceiver module with a release mechanism. This suggests that the prior art likely discloses a main body and a mechanism, potentially a sliding component, that allows for fastening and releasing from a socket, which are fundamental elements of both independent claims in US9523826. While the specific details of the "two sliding slots," "limiting space," "limited part," and the precise confinement of the "elastic component" would need to be directly compared to the full text of US7201520B2, the overarching concept of a pluggable optical module with a release mechanism is clearly present and could anticipate the broader functional aspects of the independent claims.

2. US20110081114A1

• Full Citation: US20110081114A1 [cite: US9523826B2]
• Publication/Filing Date: Published on April 7, 2011. The priority date is October 5, 2009. [cite: US9523826B2]
• Brief Description: This patent describes a communications module that integrates a "boot" and a "release slide." [cite: US9523826B2]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US20110081114A1 potentially anticipates claims 1 and 7 of US9523826. The term "release slide" in the title strongly suggests a sliding mechanism for disengaging the module from a socket, which directly corresponds to the "sliding component" concept in US9523826. This prior art likely discloses a main body and a sliding element (the "release slide") that moves between fastening and releasing positions, interacting with fastening parts of a socket, as described in independent claims 1 and 7 of US9523826. Furthermore, the "integrated boot" might imply protective or dust-proof features, which US9523826 also aims to improve (e.g., the main body protecting the photoelectric conversion circuit from dust). A thorough comparison with the full disclosure of US20110081114A1 would be necessary to assess anticipation of the more specific structural limitations, such as the exact configuration of the limiting spaces, elastic components, and parallelism of surfaces. However, the core inventive concept of a sliding release mechanism within a pluggable module is evident, making it highly relevant to the novelty of claims 1 and 7.

US Patent 9,523,826, titled "Pluggable optical transceiver module," discloses a module designed for insertion into a socket, featuring a sliding component for fastening and releasing, and an elastic component for biasing the mechanism. An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 suggests that claims 1-7 of US9523826 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) by combining the teachings of US 2011/0081114 A1 to Finisar Corporation (Sargent) and US 7,201,520 B2 to Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. (Nishimura). This combination was, in fact, proposed as a ground for unpatentability in the IPR2026-00093 proceeding, which was ultimately denied institution on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the prior art arguments.

Obviousness Analysis

Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes a pluggable optical transceiver module comprising a main body, a sliding component, and an elastic component.

1. Main body with side surfaces and sliding slots: Sargent discloses a communications module (100) with a body (101) having side surfaces and a release slide (120) that operates along these sides, implying the presence of sliding slots or channels. Nishimura explicitly teaches a main body (10) with two side surfaces (11) and guide grooves (12) located at these side surfaces for a slider (20) to slide, thereby disclosing "two side surfaces that are opposite to each other and two sliding slots located at the two side surfaces, respectively". Both modules are configured to be inserted into a socket or cage.
2. Limiting space and bottom surfaces parallel to side surfaces: Nishimura clearly illustrates guide grooves (12) forming the "sliding slots" with a bottom surface (12a) shown parallel to the side surface (11). Nishimura further discloses a recessed portion (12b) and a shoulder (12c) within the guide groove, which together form a "limiting space" located at the side surface. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply this structural detail from Nishimura to Sargent's module to implement a biasing mechanism.
3. Sliding component with linkage arm, extending arms, and second fastening parts: Sargent shows a release slide (120) with a handle (122) (acting as a linkage arm) connecting two extending portions (120a) that flank the module's main body (101). These extending portions have engagement features (124) (second fastening parts). Nishimura similarly depicts a slider (20) with a connecting portion (20b) (linkage arm) and two guide portions (22) (extending arms) that position the main body (10) between them. Each guide portion has an engagement claw (21) (second fastening part). Both references teach that these extending arms are slidably disposed on the main body's slots to achieve fastening and releasing positions.
4. Fastening and releasing mechanism with first and second fastening parts: Both Sargent and Nishimura teach a mechanism where the module's second fastening parts engage with a socket's first fastening parts when in the fastening position. Upon moving to the releasing position, the second fastening parts (e.g., engagement features 124 in Sargent or engagement claws 21 in Nishimura), which feature inclined surfaces, press against the elastic first fastening parts of the socket (e.g., spring arms 152 in Sargent or engaging pieces 2a in Nishimura), causing them to move farther away from each other and release the module.
5. Limited part configured to move in limiting space: Nishimura explicitly illustrates a projection (22c) on the guide portion (22) (an extending arm) that functions as a "limited part" and moves within a recessed portion (12b) (a limiting space) of the main body.
6. Elastic component located in limiting space and confined: Nishimura teaches a resilient piece (23) (elastic component) situated in the recessed portion (12b) (limiting space) and positioned between the projection (22c) (limited part) and a shoulder (12c) (first limiting surface). This arrangement shows the elastic component confined by the main body and the sliding component's extending arm.

Motivation to Combine Sargent and Nishimura for Claim 1:
A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the features of Sargent and Nishimura to create a pluggable optical transceiver module with improved functionality. Sargent provides an effective, easily releasable latching mechanism for an optical module using a sliding component with inclined surfaces. Nishimura offers a more detailed design for integrating elastic components within limiting spaces to bias such a sliding mechanism, ensuring a secure fastening position and a controlled, consistent release. Incorporating Nishimura's biasing mechanism into Sargent's module would enhance the reliability and user experience by providing a positive retention force and smooth disengagement. The design of enclosed sliding slots and limiting spaces, present in Nishimura and implicitly beneficial to Sargent's design, would also be recognized by a PHOSITA as providing protection against dust, a known problem in optical transceivers as highlighted in the background of US9523826.

Independent Claim 7

Claim 7 shares many features with Claim 1 but provides more specific details about the main body's head and inserted parts, and the directional movement of the sliding component.

1. Main body with head part and inserted part, and sliding slots extending from head part to inserted part: Both Sargent (front end 102 as a head part, body 101 as an inserted part) and Nishimura (optical portion 10a as a head part, main body 10 as an inserted part) show optical transceiver modules with distinct head (optical connection) and inserted (socket engagement) parts. Nishimura clearly illustrates guide grooves (12) (sliding slots) extending along the side surfaces (11) of the main body (10), from the front (head part) towards the inserted part. Sargent's slide (120) also moves along the length of the module body.
2. Sliding component movement to fastening position farther from head part and releasing position closer to head part: Both Sargent (pulling handle 122 forward, toward the front/head part, to release) and Nishimura (pulling slider 20 forward, towards the optical portion 10a/head part, to release) demonstrate this directional movement. The releasing position is thus closer to the head part, and conversely, the fastening position is farther away.

The remaining elements of Claim 7 regarding the linkage arm, extending arms, second fastening part, limited part, limiting space, and elastic component are addressed by the same combination of Sargent and Nishimura as discussed for Claim 1.

Motivation to Combine Sargent and Nishimura for Claim 7:
The motivation for combining Sargent and Nishimura for Claim 7 is identical to that for Claim 1. The additional specificity in Claim 7 regarding the "head part," "inserted part," and the direction of movement for fastening/releasing are common design considerations for pluggable optical transceivers and are either explicitly taught or implicitly understood from the combined teachings of Sargent and Nishimura. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to integrate these well-known structural and operational characteristics.

Dependent Claims 2-6

The dependent claims also appear obvious when considering the combination of Sargent and Nishimura:

• Claim 2 (Main body parts and sliding direction): This claim reiterates details of the head part, inserted part, and the relative movement of the sliding component. As established, both Sargent and Nishimura teach these elements and movements.
• Claim 3 (Inclined fastening surface): Both Sargent (inclined surfaces 124 on engagement features) and Nishimura (inclined fastening surfaces 21a, 21b on engagement claws) explicitly disclose the use of inclined surfaces on the second fastening parts to achieve the spreading action required for release. This is a common and obvious mechanical feature for such a release mechanism.
• Claim 4 (Optical fiber terminal): Both Sargent and Nishimura describe optical transceiver modules, which inherently include optical fiber terminals in their head parts for connecting to optical fibers. This is a fundamental component of the described devices.
• Claim 5 (Two elastic components and limiting spaces): Nishimura explicitly shows two guide portions (22), each having a resilient piece (23) and an associated recessed portion (12b) and shoulder (12c) (i.e., limiting space with first and second limiting surfaces). The description of US9523826 itself indicates that the number of elastic components and limiting spaces can be two or one, suggesting that two is merely an embodiment and not a novel distinguishing feature over Nishimura.
• Claim 6 (Pivoted pull handle): Sargent teaches a pull handle (122) on its release slide (120) (linkage arm). While Sargent's handle isn't explicitly shown as pivoting, making a handle pivotable is a well-known mechanical design choice to improve usability, such as to avoid interference with other components (e.g., an optical fiber plug, as stated in US9523826) or for compact storage. A PHOSITA, aiming to improve the ergonomics or reduce interference of Sargent's module, would find it obvious to implement a pivotable handle, drawing from common mechanical design principles.

In conclusion, the combination of Sargent and Nishimura, driven by the motivation to improve the reliability and user convenience of a pluggable optical transceiver module with a sliding release mechanism, would have rendered claims 1-7 of US9523826 obvious to a PHOSITA.

US Patent 9523826: Term Adjustments, Continuations, Related Family, and Expiration

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is a mechanism under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) to extend the term of a U.S. patent to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. These delays generally fall into categories such as failure to:

• Issue a first Office Action within 14 months of filing.
• Respond to applicant replies within 4 months.
• Issue a patent within 4 months after payment of the issue fee.
• Issue a patent within 36 months from the filing date of an application.

Applicant delays can, however, reduce the amount of PTA. The provided patent text for US9523826 explicitly states an "Adjusted expiration" date of 2034-12-29. This indicates that Patent Term Adjustment was applied to the patent. Without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search tools to view the specific PTA calculation for US9523826, the exact breakdown of days added due to A, B, or C delays, or any applicant-caused reductions, cannot be detailed here. However, the presence of an adjusted expiration date confirms PTA was granted.

Patent Term Extension (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156 is a distinct mechanism from PTA. PTE is available for patents on certain products (like human drugs, medical devices, food additives, etc.) to compensate for time lost during the regulatory approval process by agencies such as the FDA.

Given that US9523826 is titled "Pluggable optical transceiver module," it is highly unlikely to be eligible for PTE, as optical transceiver modules generally do not require premarket government approval from regulatory agencies like the FDA in the same way human drugs or medical devices do. The provided patent text does not mention any PTE being applied or sought.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application allows an applicant to pursue additional claims based on the same disclosure as a previously filed "parent" application. It inherits the priority date of the parent application and must be filed before the parent application issues or is abandoned.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application is filed when an original application contains claims to more than one invention. The USPTO may require the applicant to restrict the claims to one invention, and the applicant can then file a divisional application for the other inventions. Like continuations, divisional applications also benefit from the priority date of the original application.

The information provided within the patent text for US9523826 lists "Other versions" including US20150093083A1. This is a patent application publication, and its publication date (2015-04-02) precedes the grant date of US9523826B2 (2016-12-20). This suggests that US20150093083A1 is likely the parent application (or a related continuing application) from which US9523826 was granted. The "Applications Claiming Priority" section also lists TW102135723 and TWI535118B as applications claiming priority to the same priority date (2013-10-02) as US9523826, which further indicates a patent family.

Without direct access to the USPTO's Public Search or Patent Center systems, it is not possible to definitively state whether US9523826 itself is a continuation or divisional application, or if any continuation or divisional applications have been filed from US9523826. However, its publication as US20150093083A1 suggests it proceeded through the standard application and publication process.

Related Family Members

The patent text itself provides information on related family members:

• US20150093083A1: This is an earlier publication of the same patent application that led to US9523826B2. [cite: US9523826B2]
• TW102135723A and TWI535118B: These are Taiwan patent applications that share the same priority date (2013-10-02) as US9523826. [cite: US9523826B2] These represent foreign counterparts or related applications in the same patent family.

The "Family" section of the patent also explicitly lists:

• US14/504,500: This is the application number for US9523826. [cite: US9523826B2]

Projected Expiration Date

A U.S. utility patent generally expires 20 years from its earliest effective filing date, with adjustments for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE).

For US Patent 9523826:

• Filing Date: October 2, 2014 [cite: US9523826B2]
• Original Expiration Date (20 years from filing): October 2, 2034
• Adjusted Expiration Date: December 29, 2034 [cite: US9523826B2]

The adjusted expiration date of December 29, 2034, already accounts for any Patent Term Adjustment granted due to USPTO delays. [cite: US9523826B2] As noted above, it is highly improbable that Patent Term Extension (PTE) applies to this patent. Therefore, the projected expiration date for US Patent 9523826 is December 29, 2034. [cite: US9523826B2]