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 2. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 1/7/2027 is acknowledged. The traversal of claims 10-15 is on the ground(s) that the combination of claim 10 as amended recites all the limitations of the subcombination claim 1. This is found persuasive. Thus, the restriction of claims 10-15 is hereby withdrawn. The traversal of claims 16-20 is on the ground that the process of claim 16 cannot be practiced by a materially different cable termination protection apparatus than that claimed in claim 1, and that the cable termination protection apparatus of claim 1 cannot be used to practice a materially different process than the method of claim 16 . Upon further consideration: group I (claim 1) and group III (claim 16) are distinct. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the process/steps of the invention as claimed in group III has different mode of operation, function and effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. The requirement is still deemed proper (as explained) and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Claim s 1-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Moen et al. U.S. Patent 9,722,381 . Regarding claim 1 , Moen et al. teaches a cable terminal protection apparatus, comprising: a frame (100; figure 1) positionable at a location (see figure 1) adjacent to a computing device (30; figure 1) ; and a plurality of ports (openings accommodate connectors 110; figure 1) arranged on a face (front face of 100) of the frame (100) , each of the plurality of ports configured to accept a cable termination connector (110; figure 1) corresponding to a networking cable (112; figure 1) of a static network fabric (intended use) . Regarding claim 2 , Moen et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ports are arranged on the face of the frame to substantially align (see figures 1 and 5) with a second plurality of ports (120; figure 1) of the computing device when the frame (100) is positioned at the location adjacent (see figures 1 and 5) to the computing device. Regarding claim 3 , Moen et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 2, wherein a substantial alignment of the plurality of ports (openings accommodating connectors 110) with the second plurality of ports (120) comprises a vertical alignment (any alignment involves both horizontal and vertical alignments (x and y axis)) of each of the plurality of ports with a corresponding port (each of 120) of the second plurality of ports when the frame is positioned at the location adjacent (see figures 1 and 5) to the computing device. Regarding claim 4 , Moen et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 2, wherein a substantial alignment (see figures 1 and 5) of the plurality of ports with the second plurality of ports (120; figure 1) comprises a horizontal alignment (see figures 1 and 5) of each of the plurality of ports with a corresponding port (one of ports 120; figure 1) of the second plurality of ports when the frame is positioned at the location adjacent to the computing device. Regarding claim 7 , Moen et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ports comprise at least one networking port (see column 3, lines 7-13) corresponding to a physical standard (implicitly taught) , and wherein the cable termination connector (110) corresponding (see figure 1) to the at least one networking port corresponds to the physical standard. Regarding claim 8 , Moen et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 7, wherein the physical standard comprises: multi-fiber push on (MPO);multi-fiber pull off; small form-factor pluggable (SFP) (see column 3, lines 14-26) ; SFP+; SFP28; quad small form-factor pluggable (QSFP); QSFP+; QSFP28; or RJ45. Regarding claim 10 , Moen et al. teaches a system, comprising: a rack (10; figure 1) for mounting a plurality of devices (30; figure 1) in a data center (implicitly taught) , the rack positionable at a location ( implicitly taught ) in the data center, the plurality of devices (30) comprising a networking device (see paragraph bridging columns 1-2) and a server device (see paragraph bridging columns 1-2) , the networking device communicatively connected to a server device (see paragraph bridging columns 1-2) , and the networking device comprising a plurality of networking ports (120; figure 1) ; a cable terminal protection apparatus (100; figure 1) mounted adjacent to the location in the data center, the cable terminal protection apparatus comprising a frame (body of 100) and a plurality of ports (openings accommodate ports 110) arranged on a face (front face of 100) of the frame, at least one port of the plurality of ports configured to accept a cable termination connector (110; figure 1) ; and a plurality of networking cables (112; figure 1) routed through the data center, wherein at least one networking cable of the plurality of networking cables comprises a terminal end (implicitly taught) at the location in the data center, the terminal end of the at least one networking cable coupled (see figure 1) to the cable termination connector. Regarding claim 11 , Moen et al. teaches t he system of claim 10, wherein at least one networking port of the plurality of networking ports is configured to accept (see figure 1) the cable termination connector, and wherein the at least one networking cable is movable (see figure 1; the cable/connector can be plugged or unplugged from the ports) between the at least one networking port of the plurality of networking ports of the networking device and the at least one port of the plurality of ports of the cable terminal protection apparatus. Regarding claim 12 , Moen et al. teaches t he system of claim 10, wherein the at least one port of the plurality of ports of the cable terminal protection apparatus is aligned vertically any alignment involves both horizontal and vertical alignments (x and y axis)) with at least one networking port of the plurality of networking ports when the rack is positioned at the location in the data center. Regarding claim 14 , Moen et al. teaches t he system of claim 10, wherein the number of the plurality of ports of the cable terminal protection apparatus is the same (see figure 1) as the number of the plurality of networking ports of the networking device, wherein the plurality of ports of the cable terminal protection apparatus and the plurality of networking ports of the networking device are characterized by a physical standard (implicitly taught) , and wherein each of the plurality of networking ports of the networking device correspond to one of the plurality of ports. Regarding claim 15 , Moen et al. teaches t he system of claim 10, wherein the cable terminal protection apparatus is above (see figure 1) the rack when the rack is positioned at the location in the data center. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Claim s 5, 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moen et al. U.S. Patent 9,722,381 in view of Craig et al. U.S. Pub. 2009/0163058. Regarding claim 5 , as mentioned above, Moen et al. teaches the cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 1. However, Moen et al. does not specifically teach a port cover for at least one port of the plurality of ports, the port cover configured to be connected to the at least one port to substantially cover an aperture of the at least one port. Craig et al. suggests the idea of having a cover ( 222; figure 10; see par[0038]) for a receptacle ( 48 ; figure 1 0 ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the same suggestion to have a cover configured to be connected to the at least one port to substantially cover an aperture of the at least one port of Moen et al., as suggested by Craig et al., to cover up an unused port. Regarding claim 6 , as mentioned above, Moen et al. in view of Craig et al. teaches t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 5 . Craig et al. further teaches the port cover is connected to the frame by a flexible cable (274; figure 10) at a location adjacent (see figure 10) to the at least one port. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the port cover being connected to the frame by a flexible cable, as suggested by Craig et al., at a location adjacent to the at least one port, to flexibly cover said port with said cover. Regarding claim 9 , Moen et al. in view of Craig et al. does teach t he cable terminal protection apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one networking port of the plurality of ports comprises an inactive terminal (when a port is covered up by a cover (not in use), then such port would be considered as an inactive terminal) . Regarding claim 13 , as mentioned above, Moen et al. teaches t he system of claim 10 . Even though, Moen et al. does not specifically teach wherein the number of the plurality of ports of the cable terminal protection apparatus is greater than the number of the plurality of networking ports of the networking device , however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art t o provide or derive the numbers of ports and networking ports as such , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 , to fulfill the need in connections. Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3069 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6PM. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Imani N Hayman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5528 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT HUNG Q. DANG Examiner Art Unit 2835 /IMANI N HAYMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841