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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been considered and entered.
The rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action mailed 07/30/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 6-8 of the remarks received 10/27/2025) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 12 has been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds for rejection (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section of this office action).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13, 16, 18, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman (US-20020131750-A1) in view of Bleus (US 20100006709 A1).
With regards to claim 12, Holman discloses a sheath holder module (Holman/Fig22/Sheath holder module bodies 2-5 [Cable routing clips]) for anchoring one or more sheaths (Holman/Paragraph 35, lines 1-4) of optical fibers (Holman/Paragraph 39/Lines 17-19) at a fiber organizer (Holman/Paragraph 2/Lines 1-4) of a telecommunications closure (Holman/Fig21: Telecommunications closure [Cable Riser]), comprising:
a body (Holman/Fig1: Body [Cable routing clip]), defining:
a first axis,
a second axis, and
a third axis
that are mutually perpendicular to one another;
an outer surface (Holman/Fig1/Outer surface partially defined by 20 and 22 [Outer faces]); and
a plurality of walls defining a plurality of sheath passages, (Holman/Figs1&21/Walls partially defined by elements 34 and 36 [Retaining tabs]) a sheath passage of the plurality of sheath passages being labyrinthine (Holman/Fig1/Sheath Passage 38 [Slot]) in a plane perpendicular to the first axis and parallel to the second axis and the third axis, the sheath passage defining a path in the plane along a center of the sheath passage in an elongate dimension of the sheath passage that changes direction by at least 90 degrees at each of a plurality of corners (Holman/Fig6/Multiple corners that define path turns of at least 90 degrees), the sheath passage including a slot (Holman/Fig1/Slot 44 [Gap]) configured for insertion of a sheath through the slot in a direction perpendicular to the first axis, parallel to the plane, and perpendicular to an elongate dimension of the sheath, to thereby install the sheath in the sheath passage.
Holman is silent regarding an interconnected group of elastomeric covers, one of the elastomeric covers being configured to be torn away from the group. However, the practice of applying elastomeric covers to a sheath holder module exists in the art as exemplified by Bleus. Holman and Bleus are considered to be analogous in the field of sheath holding apparatuses.
Bleus teaches an interconnected group of elastomeric covers, one of the elastomeric covers being configured to be torn away from the group (Bleus/Fig2/Elastomeric covers 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an elastomeric cover to the sheath passage disclosed by Holman as suggested by Bleus since doing so would improve the security with which one or more sheathes could be retained within the sheath holder module.
Holman and Bleus together do not specifically disclose one of the elastomeric covers as being configured to be torn away from the group such that
the one of the elastomeric covers can be inserted into a portion of the sheath passage in a direction parallel to the first axis and perpendicular to the plane such that the one of the elastomeric covers blocks passage of the sheath through the slot and frictionally engages inner surfaces of the wall that define the sheath passage; and
a remainder of the elastomeric covers can be inserted in one or more other sheath passages of the plurality of sheath passages.
However, (i) and (ii) above are intended uses of elastomeric covers. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Examiner’s note: While the above limitations are “intended use” limitations as currently presented, Examiner considers structure associated with said limitations to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention and would recommend rewriting the above “intended use” limitations as positive structural limitations.
With regards to claim 13, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 as previously discussed, wherein the sheath passage is configured to hold a plurality of sheaths (Holman/Fig1; Paragraph 35, lines 1-4) having an elongate dimension substantially parallel to the first axis.
With regards to claim 16, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 as previously discussed, wherein the body includes couplers (Holman/Fig1/Couplers 46 and 48 [Mounting tabs]) for releasably attaching the sheath holder module to a fiber manager of a fiber organizer of a telecommunications closure.
With regards to claim 18, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 as previously discussed, wherein the body comprises a flexibly resilient material such that the slot expands as a sheath passes through the slot and shrinks when the sheath has passed through the slot (Holman/Paragraph 35; Lines 23-24).
With regards to claim 37, Holman and Bleus together teach the module of claim 12 as previously discussed, wherein the wall includes a sheath retention tab (Holman/Fig1/Sheath retention tab 36 [Retaining tab]) projecting from a fixed end to a free end along a direction that is perpendicular to the first axis, and oblique to each of the second axis and the third axis (Holman/Fig6), the sheath retention tab partially defining the sheath passage (Holman/Fig1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman (US-20020131750-A1) in view of Bleus (US 20100006709 A1) and in further view of Gundel (US-20170089495-A1).
With regards to claim 19, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 wherein the body includes a plurality of ribs (Holman/Fig1/Ribs 34 and 35 [Retaining tabs]) projecting from the wall into the sheath passage perpendicularly to the first axis, but does not specifically teach the plurality of ribs as defining discrete anchoring positions for sheaths.
Holman, Bleus, and Gundel are considered to be analogous in the field of cable management systems.
Gundel discloses a plurality of ribs mounted to a wall, each defining discrete anchoring points for sheaths (Gundel/Fig5a/Wire management elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply additional ribs to the sheath holder module taught by Holman and Bleus in the manner taught by Gundel since doing so would allow the individual sheath holders to hold and effectively organize multiple sheaths.
Claims 25-29 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman (US-20020131750-A1) in view of Bleus (US 20100006709 A1) and in further view of Aznag (WO-2013149846-A1).
With regards to claim 25, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 as previously discussed, further comprising the sheath anchored within the sheath passage, but does not specifically teach the sheath containing a plurality of fibers. However, sheaths containing a plurality of optical fibers are well known in the art, as exemplified by Aznag.
Holman, Bleus, and Aznag are considered to be analogous in the field of telecommunications closures.
Aznag teaches sheaths containing a plurality of optical fibers (Aznag/Fig27/Fibers visible at the end of the two smaller sheaths 12 [Cables]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place sheaths containing multiple optical fibers such as those sheaths taught by Aznag within the sheath holder module taught by Holman and Bleus since doing so would allow each sheath within the module to house multiple light pathways.
With regards to claim 26, Holman and Bleus together teach the sheath holder module of claim 12 as previously discussed, further comprising a plurality of optical fiber-containing sheath anchored within the sheath passage, but does not specifically teach the sheaths as containing a plurality of fibers. However, sheaths containing a plurality of optical fibers are well known in the art, as exemplified by Aznag.
Holman and Aznag are considered to be analogous in the field of telecommunications closures.
Aznag teaches sheaths containing a plurality of optical fibers (Aznag/Fig27/Fibers visible at the end of the two smaller sheaths 12 [Cables]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place sheaths containing multiple optical fibers such as those sheaths taught by Aznag within the sheath holder module taught by Holman and Bleus since doing so would allow each sheath within the module to house multiple light pathways.
With regards to claim 27, Holman and Bleus together teach a fiber optic organizer for a telecommunications closure, comprising: a main assembly defining a longitudinal axis of the main assembly (Holman/Fig20/Main assembly 202 [Equipment rack]), the main assembly supporting: a fiber manager (Holman/Column 1/Lines 10-13); and a sheath holder module according to claim 12, but do not teach a plurality of fiber management trays. However, the inclusion of fiber management trays is well known in the art as exemplified by Aznag.
Holman, Bleus, and Aznag are considered to be analogous in the field of telecommunications closures.
Aznag teaches the inclusion of a plurality of fiber management trays within a fiber optic organizer (Aznag/Fig7/Fiber management trays 48 [Trays]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use trays for fiber organization as taught by Aznag within the fiber optic organizer taught by Holman and Bleus since doing so would allow the fiber optic organizer to house optical fibers in high density arrangements without sacrificing user access.
With regards to claim 28, Holman, Bleus, and Aznag teach the fiber optic organizer of claim 27 as previously discussed, comprising a plurality of the sheath holder modules (Holman/Fig22/Sheath holder module bodies 2-5) supported by the main assembly, the first axes of the sheath holder modules forming oblique angles with the longitudinal axis of the main assembly (Holman/Fig21/Sheath holder module bodies disposed on 206 [angle wall]).
With regards to claim 29, Holman, Bleus, and Aznag teach the fiber optic organizer of claim 27 as previously discussed, comprising first and second of the sheath holder modules (Holman/Fig22/Sheath holder module bodies 2-5) supported by the main assembly, the first axes of the first sheath holder modules being non-parallel to the first axes of the second sheath holder modules (Holman/Fig21/The first axes of the sheath holder module bodies disposed on 206 [angle wall] are not parallel to the first axes of those disposed on 208 [rear wall]).
With regards to claim 53, Holman and Bleus together teach the module of claim 12, and teaches a sheath holder volume defined by a labyrinthine sheath passage, but does not teach the module as defining a sheath termination zone between the sheath holder volume defined by the sheath passage and a fiber retention lip, nor do they specifically teach the module as being connected to a fiber manager and positioned relative to the fiber manager such that any axial growth of a sheath containing an optical fiber and held in the sheath holding volume that causes an axial end of the sheath to advance within, but not beyond, the sheath termination zone cannot cause the optical fiber to bend beyond a minimum bend radius of the optical fiber within the fiber manager.
Holman, Bleus, and Aznag are considered to be analogous in the field of telecommunications closures.
Aznag teaches a sheath holder module as defining a sheath termination zone (Aznag/Fig27/[Volume between the ends of the sheaths and fiber retention lip 46 [Cable fixation clamps]) between a sheath holder volume and a fiber retention lip (Aznag/Fig27/Fiber retention lip 46 [Cable fixation clamps]), the module being connected to a fiber manager and positioned relative to the fiber manager such that any axial growth of a sheath containing an optical fiber and held in the sheath holding volume that causes an axial end of the sheath to advance within, but not beyond, the sheath termination zone cannot cause the optical fiber to bend beyond a minimum bend radius of the optical fiber within the fiber manager (Aznag/Fig27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the sheath termination zone taught by Aznag to the module taught by Holman and Bleus since doing so would increase the robustness of the modules with regards to the environmentally triggered changes in sheath length.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman (US-20020131750-A1) in view of Bleus (US 20100006709 A1) in further view of Aznag (WO-2013149846-A1) and in view of Gundel (US-20170089495-A1).
With regards to claim 31, Holman, Bleus, and Aznag together teach the fiber optic organizer of claim 27 comprising:
a frame (Aznag/Fig30/Frame 72 [First block]), the frame defining a basket open on a side of the frame (Aznag/Fig30/Side defined by element 32 [The upper half of the device as oriented in the figure]), the basket being configured for storing loops of sheathed fibers (Aznag/Fig28/Basket 100 [Cable storage area]);
a plurality of tray support modules (Aznag/Fig30/Fiber management tray 74 [Groove plate]) mounted to the frame on another side of the frame and supporting the plurality of fiber management trays (Aznag/Fig30/Side defined by elements 74 [The lower half of the device as oriented in the figure] wherein the tray support modules 74 are supporting the fiber management trays 48), the another side of the frame being opposite the side of the frame, wherein
the fiber manager includes structures for routing optical fibers,
the fiber manager being configured to mount a frame (Aznag/Fig30/Frame 72 [First block]) that can mount a tray support module (Aznag/Fig28/Tray support module 74 [Groove plate]) for pivotally mounting fiber management trays (Aznag/Fiber management trays 48 [Trays]),
the fiber manager including a plurality of the sheath holder module mounted thereto in an arrangement,
the arrangement defining at least three rows of sheath holder bodies (Aznag/Fig20/Three rows of sheath holder bodies [Rectangles as shown below to the right]) each configured to anchor one or more sheaths of the optical fibers, wherein each row defines a row axis extending through centers of the sheath holder bodies of the row (Aznag/Fig20: Arrow as shown below to the right]).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
797
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Holman, Bleus, and Aznag do not teach the row axis of one of the rows as being projected in a reference plane perpendicular to the row axis of each of the other two rows projected in the reference plane.
Holman, Bleus, Aznag, and Gundel are considered to be analogous in the field of cable management systems.
Gundel teaches sheath holder bodies (Gundel/Fig9b/Sheath holder bodies 906 [Wire management elements]) organized in rows such that the row axis of one of the rows is projected in a reference plane perpendicular to the row axis of the other row, projected in the reference plane (Gundel/Fig9b/Arrangement of plane [Rectangle as shown below] and row axes [Arrows as shown below]).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the multi-axis arrangement of sheath holder rows taught by Gundel to the fiber organizer taught by Holman, Bleus, and Aznag since doing so would make full use of multiple sides of the organizer with regards to the placement of sheath routing structures and would increase the volume of sheaths that could be routed into the organizer.
With regards to claim 32, Holman, Bleus, Aznag, and Gundel together teach the fiber organizer of claim 31 as previously discussed, wherein the arrangement includes a fourth row of sheath holder bodies (Aznag/Fig26/Four rows of sheath holder bodies [Rectangles as shown below]), the fourth row defining a fourth row axis extending through centers of the sheath holder bodies of the fourth row (Aznag/Fig26/Row axis [Arrow as shown below]), wherein each row axis projected in the reference plane is perpendicular to two others of the row axes projected in the reference plane.
PNG
media_image4.png
744
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874