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
Applicants’ election with traverse of group II, claims 23-44, in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the claims directed to the unelected Groups I and III would not be unduly burdensome for examination with the elected claims of Group II.” This is not found persuasive because the search is not coextensive as evidenced by different search for different groups. Therefore, there is a substantial burden upon the Office to consider, search, analyze, examine, and write rejections for multiple inventions in the same application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The office action of the examination of claims 23-44 are set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/13/23, 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 23-28, 32-38 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cote et al. (US-10641967-B1) in view of Castonguay et al. (US 7349616 B1).
With respect to claim 23, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose a local convergence point terminal comprising: a shell (110) comprising a cavity (112); an input connection port (124) comprising a port opening (figure 1) extending from an outer surface (102) of the shell into the cavity (112); and a plurality of output connection ports (120) comprising a port opening (figure 1) extending from the outer surface (102) of the shell into the cavity (112), wherein the input connection port (124) and the plurality of output connection ports (120) are arranged in an array (see figures 1 and 9) at an edge of the shell (110); a plurality of multi-fiber connectors (210) positioned within the plurality of output connection ports (120); an input cable (200) comprising a first fiber bundle (202, figure 8), wherein: the input cable (200) passes through the input connection port (124), and the first fiber bundle comprises a plurality of optical fibers (202), a splitter (275) within the cavity (112), each splitter assembly comprising an optical splitter (275), a splitter input optical fiber (204) and a plurality of splitter output optical fibers (202), wherein: the splitter input optical fibers (204) of the splitter assembly are optically coupled to the plurality of optical fibers (202) of the first fiber bundle, and the plurality of splitter output optical fibers (202) of each splitter assembly is terminated at the plurality of multi-fiber connectors (210) in the plurality of output connection ports (120).
With respect to claim 35, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose a local convergence point terminal comprising: a shell (110) comprising a cavity (112); an input connection port (124) comprising a port opening (figure 1) extending from an outer surface (102) of the shell into the cavity (112); and a plurality of output connection ports (120) comprising a port opening (figure 1) extending from the outer surface (102) of the shell into the cavity (112), wherein the input connection port (124) and the plurality of output connection ports (120) are arranged in an array (see figures 1 and 9) at an edge of the shell (110); a plurality of multi-fiber connectors (200, 210) positioned within the input connection port (124) and the plurality of output connection ports (120); a splitter (275) within the cavity (112), each splitter assembly comprising an optical splitter (275), a splitter input optical fiber (204) and a plurality of splitter output optical fibers (202), wherein the splitter input optical fibers (204) of the splitter assembly are optically coupled to the plurality of optical fibers (202) of the first fiber bundle, and the plurality of splitter output optical fibers (202) of each splitter assembly is terminated at the plurality of multi-fiber connectors (210) in the plurality of output connection ports (120).
Cote et al. do not explicitly disclose a plurality of splitter assemblies.
However, Castonguay et al. (figures 1A and 3A) teach an optical device including a plurality of splitter assemblies (42, 58). 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 method of Cote et al. with the plurality of splitter assemblies (accordance with the teaching of Castonguay et al.) for the purpose of providing non-limiting examples of splitters, that splits the optical signal from the optical fiber to a plurality of pigtails (column 7, lines 28-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 24 and 36, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except the plurality of splitter assemblies comprises eight splitter assemblies.
However, Castonguay et al. (figures 1A and 3A) teach an optical device including the plurality of splitter assemblies comprises eight splitter assemblies (column 7, lines 27-28). 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 method of Cote et al. with the above feature (accordance with the teaching of Castonguay et al.) for the purpose of providing non-limiting examples of splitters, that splits the optical signal from the optical fiber to a plurality of pigtails (column 7, lines 28-30).
With respect to claim 25, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the plurality of optical fibers of the first fiber bundle is coupled to the splitter input optical fiber of the plurality of splitter assemblies by a splice.
However, Castonguay et al. (figure 3A) teach an optical device including the plurality of optical fibers of the first fiber bundle is coupled to the splitter input optical fiber of the plurality of splitter assemblies by a splice (60, figure 3A). 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 method of Cote et al. with the above feature (accordance with the teaching of Castonguay et al.) for the purpose of providing non-limiting examples of splitters, that splits the optical signal from the optical fiber to a plurality of pigtails (column 7, lines 28-30).
With respect to claim 26, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein the plurality of optical fibers of the first fiber bundle is coupled to the splitter input optical fiber (204) of the plurality of splitter assemblies by a connector (130).
With respect to claims 27 and 37, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein a number of splitter optical fibers for each splitter assembly is a multiple of a number of input optical fibers (202) of the input cable (200) such that each plurality of splitter output optical fibers (202) is routed to an individual output connection port (120) of the plurality of output connection ports (120).
With respect to claims 28 and 38, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein the plurality of splitter output optical fibers of each splitter assembly comprises eight splitter output optical fibers (column 6, lines 50-58).
With respect to claims 32 and 42, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein the array comprises a single row (see figures 1 and 9).
With respect to claims 33 and 43, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein the array comprises a first row and a second row (see figures 1 and 9).
With respect to claims 34 and 44, Cote et al. (figures 1 and 7-9) disclose the local convergence point terminal, wherein the plurality of multi-fiber connectors is a plurality of multi-fiber termination push-on connectors (210) (figure 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 29-31 and 39-41 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 prior art fails to disclose the local convergence point terminal, further comprising at least one pass-through output connection port comprising a port opening extending from the outer surface of the shell into the cavity, wherein: the input cable further comprises at least one pass-through fiber bundle, and at least one multi-fiber connector of the plurality of multi-fiber connectors is disposed within the at least one pass-through output connection port, and the at least one pass-through fiber bundle is terminated at the at least one multi-fiber connector in the at least one pass-through output connection port as recited in claim 29 and further comprising at least one pass-through output connection port comprising a port opening extending from the outer surface of the shell into the cavity, wherein: at least one multi-fiber connector of the plurality of multi-fiber connectors is disposed within the at least one pass-through output connection port, and at least one pass-through fiber bundle within the cavity is terminated at the at least one multi-fiber connector in the at least one pass-through output connection port as recited in claim 39.
Claims 30-31 depend from claim 29.
Claims 40-41 depend from claim 39.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cassell et al. (US-20130034336-A1) disclose a fiber optic network. Vongseng et al. (US-7515805-B2) disclose a fiber optic splitter.
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