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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species III, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on 9/16/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/14/23 and 08/05/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
4. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen (US 20140226935 A1) in view of Geens (WO 2020086942 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Allen (figures 1-4) discloses a telecommunications enclosure comprising a housing (20) including a dome (30) and a base (28) positioned at one end of the dome (30), at least a portion of the base (28) being detachable from a remainder of the housing (20) (figure 4 and [0031]), the dome defining a longitudinal axis (22), and the housing defining a length (see the annotation in figure 1 below) that extends along the longitudinal axis (22); and the housing defining a cross-dimension (see the annotation in figure 1 below) that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (22), the cross- dimension being measured at the cable entrance and the length of the housing (20) being longer than the cross-dimension (figure 1).
Allen does not explicitly disclose the housing including a side cable entrance defined at least in part by the base, the side cable entrance defining a cable entrance axis aligned in a reference plane that extends across the longitudinal axis.
However, Geens (figures 1-3) teaches a cable sealing device including the housing (150) including a side cable entrance (100) defined at least in part by the base (figure 3), the side cable entrance defining a cable entrance axis (A1) aligned in a reference plane that extends across the longitudinal axis (A2, figures 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Allen to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Geens) for the purpose of facilitating to route the cables into the closure (page 2, lines 15-16).
[AltContent: arrow] Length of the housing
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
526
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cross-dimension
With respect to claim 2, Allen (figures 1-4) substantially discloses all the limitations of claimed invention except the length is at least 1.5, or 2 or 3 times as long as the cross-dimension.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Allen to form the length is at least 1.5, or 2 or 3 times as long as the cross-dimension as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 3, Allen (figures 1-4) substantially discloses all the limitations of claimed invention except the reference plane is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
However, Geens (figures 1-3) teaches a cable sealing device including the reference plane is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (page 5, lines 30-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Allen to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Geens) for the purpose of facilitating to route the cables into the closure (page 2, lines 15-16).
With respect to claim 17, Allen (figures 1-4) discloses the telecommunications enclosure, wherein a tray arrangement including a plurality of pivotal trays is covered by the dome ([0033]), wherein the tray arrangement includes a tower to which the pivotal trays are pivotally mounted ([0033]).
Allen does not disclose a fiber storage module is mounted on the tower for allowing fibers to be routed in at least one 180 degree turn before being routed to the pivotal trays.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Allen to form a fiber storage module is mounted on the tower for allowing fibers to be routed in at least one 180 degree turn before being routed to the pivotal trays as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 18, Allen (figures 1-4) substantially discloses all the limitations of claimed invention except the reference plane is angled 80-100 degrees relative to the to the longitudinal axis.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Allen to form the reference plane is angled 80-100 degrees relative to the to the longitudinal axis as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-16 and 19-22 are 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the telecommunications enclosure, wherein the housing includes a sleeve defining the side cable entrance, and wherein the sleeve includes a sleeve passage containing a cable sealing unit including cable sealing gel as recited in claim 4; wherein the housing includes a sleeve defining the side cable entrance, wherein the sleeve includes a sleeve passage containing a cable sealing arrangement, wherein the sleeve projects laterally outwardly from a main body of the housing which extends along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the sleeve is oriented such that the main body and the sleeve define an oblique angle when viewed along the longitudinal axis as recited in claim 15; wherein the reference plane is a first reference plane, wherein a second reference plane perpendicular to the first reference plane bisects the side cable entrance, wherein a plurality of pivotal fiber management trays are positioned within the dome, and wherein the second reference plane is oriented at an oblique angle with respect to pivot axes of the pivotal fiber management trays as recited in claim 16; wherein the housing includes a sleeve defining the side cable entrance, wherein the sleeve includes a sleeve passage containing a cable sealing arrangement, wherein the sleeve projects laterally outwardly from a main body of the housing which extends along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the sleeve is oriented such that the main body and the sleeve define an oblique angle in the range of 130-170 degrees when viewed along the longitudinal axis as recited in claim 19; wherein a tray arrangement including a plurality of pivotal trays is coved by the dome, wherein the tray arrangement includes a tower to which the pivotal trays are pivotally mounted, wherein a fiber storage module is non-pivotally mountable at a mounting interface on the tower, wherein the fiber storage module is configured for accommodating excess fiber length of fibers prior to the fibers being routed to the pivotal trays, and wherein the tray arrangement includes a tray expansion adapter that can be mounted at the mounting interface in place of the fiber storage module to allow at least one additional pivotal tray to be pivotally mounted at the tower as recited in claim 20 and wherein the housing includes a sleeve defining the side cable entrance, wherein the sleeve includes a sleeve passage containing a cable sealing arrangement, and wherein the cable sealing arrangement includes an actuator for pressurizing gel of the cable sealing arrangement within the sleeve as recited in claim 21.
Claims 5-14 depend from claim 4.
Claim 22 depends from claim 21.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Adams et al. (US 9394442 B2) disclose a hybrid thermoplastic gel. Alston et al. (US 8861919 B2) disclose fiber optic communications systems. And Ray et al. (US 6009225 A) disclose a fiber optic splice closure.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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 Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874