Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/221,109

BRACKET FOR OPTICAL NETWORK TERMINAL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Examiner
DOAN, JENNIFER
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Q Comm Ip LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
763 granted / 841 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
866
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Specification 2. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leeman et al. (US-20150355428-A1). With respect to claim 19, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose a bracket for an optical network terminal, comprising a central wall (see the annotation in figure 12 below) comprising a front surface and a rear surface (figure 12); an outer wall (see the annotation in figure 12 below); the central wall and the outer wall defining a holding region configured to receive and hold an optical network terminal (40, 70, 90, figures 11, 13) (see [0103]-[0105]); the rear surface of the central wall comprising a fiber cable spool (207) configured to position a fiber cable (40, 90) ([0104]); and a port (224)passing through the central wall (figure 13), the port configured to pass the fiber cable (90) from the fiber cable spool (207) to the optical network terminal (see [0104] and [0105]). [AltContent: arrow] Outer wall [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] Rear surface Rounded positioner [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] Central wall Front surface PNG media_image1.png 410 378 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. 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. 8. 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. 9. Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leeman et al. (as cited above) in view of Coan et al. (US 2014/0219622 A1). With respect to claim 1, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose a bracket for an optical network terminal, comprising a central wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); an outer wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); the central wall and the outer wall defining a holding region configured to receive and hold an optical network terminal on a front side of the bracket (40, 70, 90, figures 11, 13) (see [0103]-[0105]) and a port (224), the port configured to pass the fiber cable (90) to the optical network terminal (see [0104] and [0105]). Leeman et al. do not explicitly disclose a first fiber cable spool on a rear side of the bracket, the first fiber cable spool configured to position a fiber cable; a second fiber cable spool on the rear side of the bracket, the second fiber cable spool configured to position the fiber cable. However, Coan et al. (figure 9) teach an optical device including a first fiber cable spool (354) on a rear side of the bracket (figure 9), the first fiber cable spool configured to position a fiber cable ([0067] and [0068]); a second fiber cable spool (354) on the rear side of the bracket (figure 9), the second fiber cable spool configured to position the fiber cable ([0067] and [0068]). 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 Leeman et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Coan) for the purpose of providing cable management structures to align and optically couple together the connectorized ends of the subscriber cables with the connectorized ends of the service cables ([0067] and [0068]). With respect to claim 2, Leeman et al. disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the bracket provides cable management features that do not exceed bend tolerance of the fiber cable ([0094]). With respect to claim 3, Leeman et al. disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the bracket is configured to be mounted or fastened to a wall or other vertically orientated structure in a vertical orientation ([0087]). With respect to claim 4, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, further comprising a cover (71), the cover configured to engage with the bracket (30, 102), the cover configured to cover ports (224) on the optical network terminal for power, ethernet, and the fiber cable (90). With respect to claim 5, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, further comprising a protective cover (71), the protective cover configured to engage the front side of the bracket to cover the port (224) and a portion of the fiber cable (90). With respect to claim 6, Leeman et al. (figures 2, 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, further comprising a sliding cover (pivotally cover 104), the sliding cover configured to slidably engage with the bracket and to cover the protective cover (71) (figure 2 and [0092]). With respect to claim 7, Leeman et al. disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the outer wall includes a first fastening clip and a second fastening clip configured to hold the optical network terminal (the optical splitter body 71 also defines a connection interface 75 that mounts the splitter body 71 to the base 121 of the tray 120. For example, the connection interface 75 may couple to a mounting interface 126 (e.g., latches, snaps, dove tail, etc.) on the tray 120) ([0096]). With respect to claims 9-11, Leeman et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the first and second fiber cable spools include walls with cylindrical outer surfaces, the fiber cable or a pigtail of the fiber cable wraps against or proximate one or both of the cylindrical outer surfaces and the cylindrical outer surfaces are shaped and sized such that a bend tolerance of the fiber cable is not exceeded. However, Coan et al. teach an optical device including the first and second fiber cable spools (354) include walls with cylindrical outer surfaces (figures 1-3), the fiber cable or a pigtail of the fiber cable wraps against or proximate one or both of the cylindrical outer surfaces ([0046]) and the cylindrical outer surfaces are shaped and sized such that a bend tolerance of the fiber cable is not exceeded ([0042]). 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 Leeman et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Coan) for the purpose of providing cable management structures to align and optically couple together the connectorized ends of the subscriber cables with the connectorized ends of the service cables ([0067] and [0068]). With respect to claim 12, Leeman et al. (figures 34) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein a mounting slot (131) is generally centered in the first fiber cable spool (134) Leeman et al. do not explicitly disclose a second mounting slot is generally centered in the second fiber cable spool. However, a second mounting slot being generally centered in the second fiber cable spool are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. 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 Leeman et al. to include the second mounting slot generally centered in the second fiber cable spool for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. With respect to claim 13, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein a rear surface of the bracket includes a rounded positioner (figure 12) that directs the fiber cable to the port in the bracket (figures 12-13). With respect to claim 14, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the rounded positioner extends from the rear surface (figures 12-13), and the rounded positioner includes an inner rounded positioner (figures 12-13) that forms a curved channel to position the fiber cable (92) as the fiber cable approaches the port ([0103], [0105]). With respect to claim 15, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the bracket receives the fiber cable (40, 90), and a pigtail of the fiber cable comprising a SC/AOC connector is spliced to the fiber cable ([0105]). With respect to claim 16, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the bracket includes a holder (209), which holds a heat shrink glass tube for splicing the fiber cable and a pigtail of the fiber cable ([0104]). With respect to claim 17, Leeman et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except outer surfaces of the first fiber cable spool and the second fiber cable spool are sized and shaped to have a bend radius ratio of approximately 10% to approximately 35%. However, outer surfaces of the first fiber cable spool and the second fiber cable spool being sized and shaped to have a bend radius ratio of approximately 10% to approximately 35% are considered to be obvious to obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leeman et al. to include the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also 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 and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the ranges claimed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP § 2144.05). With respect to claim 18, Leeman et al. (figures 10-14) disclose the bracket for an optical network, wherein the optical network terminal (40, 70, 90) is positioned in the holding region (figures 11 and 13 and [0103] and [0105]). 10. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leeman et al. (as cited above) in view of Marcouiller et al. (US-20190041597-A1). With respect to claim 20, Leeman et al. (figures 2, 7 and 10-14) disclose a bracket for an optical network terminal, comprising a central wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); an outer wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); the central wall and the outer wall defining a holding region configured to receive and hold an optical network terminal (40, 70, 90, figures 11, 13) (see [0103]-[0105]); a port (224) passing through the central wall (figure 13), the port configured to pass the fiber cable (90) from the fiber cable spool (207) to a front side of the bracket (figures 10-11); a protective cover (71), the protective cover configured to engage the front side of the bracket to cover the port (224) and a portion of the fiber cable (90) (figure 11); and a sliding cover (pivotally cover 104), the sliding cover configured to slidably engage with the bracket and to cover the protective cover (see figure 2). Leeman et al. do not explicitly disclose a fiber cable spool positioned on a rear side of the bracket, the fiber cable spool configured to position a fiber cable. However, Marcouiller et al. (figure 19) teach an optical device including a fiber cable spool (410) positioned on a rear side of the bracket (56), the fiber cable spool (410) configured to position a fiber cable (30, figures 18-19). 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 Leeman et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Marcouiller) for the purpose of managing the slack length of cable at the storage bracket ([0138]). With respect to claim 21, Leeman et al. (figures 2, 7 and 10-14) disclose a bracket for an optical network terminal, comprising a central wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); an outer wall (see the annotation in figure 12 above); the central wall and the outer wall defining a holding region configured to receive and hold an optical network terminal (40, 70, 90, figures 11, 13) (see [0103]-[0105]); a port (224) passing through the bracket, the port configured to pass the pigtail of fiber cable (90) to a front side of the bracket; a protective cover (71), the protective cover configured to engage the front side of the bracket to cover the port (224) and a portion of the fiber cable (90) (figure 11); and a cover (104), the cover configured to engage with the bracket (30, 102) and to cover the protective cover (71). Leeman et al. do not explicitly disclose a fiber cable spool positioned on a rear side of the bracket, the fiber cable spool configured to position a fiber cable and a pigtail of fiber cable. However, Marcouiller et al. (figure 19) teach an optical device including a fiber cable spool (410) positioned on a rear side of the bracket (56), the fiber cable spool (410) configured to position a fiber cable and a pigtail of fiber cable (30, figures 18-19). 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 Leeman et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Marcouiller) for the purpose of managing the slack length of cable at the storage bracket ([0138]). Allowable Subject Matter 11. Claim 8 is 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 bracket for an optical network, wherein the first fastening clip extends from a left wall portion of the outer wall, and the second fastening clip extends from a right wall portion of the outer wall, the first fastening clip and the second fastening clip further include tabs configured to hold against a front surface of the optical network terminal as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1. Conclusion 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Geens et al. (US 11892696 B2) disclose a sealed closure having modular components. Smith et al. (US 9632273 B2) disclose a fiber optic drop terminal assembly. Kowalczyk et al. (US 8189984 B2) disclose a fiber optic enclosure assembly. 13. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601887
TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596236
OPTICAL FIBER CABLE TRAY CLIP STRUCTURALLY CONFIGURED TO PIVOTALLY CONNECT TWO TRAYS TOGETHER TO LIMIT ACCESS TO LOWER TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585147
Parallel Microcavity Trimming by Structured-Laser Illumination
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585075
Module Assembly, Carrier Unit and Carrier Arrangement for the Fibre-Optic Distribution Industry
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571976
OPTICAL DISTRIBUTION AND SPLICE FRAME INCLUDING ENCLOSURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month