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 2, 11, C and g in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Smith does not disclose a HMFOC connector at both ends of the spooled cable (note, ruggedized, patchcord on a spool and ready for field plug-in at both termination points are not claim terms/limitations): Smith teaches a cable (30) with one end terminating at HMFOC connector (32) and the second end terminating inside the terminal (36) at HMFOC (518) at the inside of the terminal (518 is a “hardened” connector). This then forms a cable with HMFOCs at each end as claimed. The claim does not require the end within the terminal be freely accessible for field plug-in connections. How the housing and spool rotate and how the cable is paid out does not relate to anything claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument about the cable plugged in to the outer port of the terminal: This does not relate to the two HMFOCs discussed since the connector used for this limitation is the connector on the inside of the terminal, not the outside portion. What plugs into the outer port adapter of the terminal is not what the second HMFOC is, the HMFOC is the inside connector portion of the terminal.
Regarding the argument that Smith cannot teach the rapid spool arrangement because Smith’s spooled cable is one-ended cable integrated into a fixed terminal, not a bidirectionally connectorized cable on a rapid spool: It is unclear as to what claim limitations are being referred to here.
Regarding the argument that Smith does not disclose a hardened single fiber drop port (the first and second HMFOC ports has already been discussed): Smith teaches multiple ports on each terminal, so one of the multiple ports is considered a drop port. Each terminal has many ports (12 shown).
Regarding the argument that Connor does not disclose an HMFOC port or two HMFOC ports: Smith is relied upon for these limitations, not Connor. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding the argument that Conner only teaches a connector in an alternative embodiment: Nothing requires a reference teaching be limited to only the “primary” embodiment. Smith teaches one HMFOC port at 32 and another at the terminal 36. Smith further teaches 24 further HMFOC ports (12 interior ports 518 and 12 exterior ports 516).
Smith teaches the spool and a cable with two ends having HMFOCs and Conner contributes the port mapping. Smith is relied upon for the spool. Combining Smith and Conner would put the second HMFOC at the entrance of the terminal as taught by Conner so the resulting combination teaches all the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement taught by Smith to include the indexing taught by Conner with the motivation for doing so would have been to allow drop cables extending from a subscriber premises to be optically coupled to the fiber optic network at an optical connection terminal more closely located to the subscriber premises as opposed to an optical connection terminal located more distantly or at the actual mid-span access location provided on the distribution cable. Thus, the overall length of the drop cables may be substantially reduced (Conner, P0046).
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.
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.
Claims 3-14 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 2009/0317047 A1) and Conner et al (US 2010/0092169 A1).
Smith teaches:
22. A fiber optic indexing arrangement (Figs. 1-8):
a rapid spool arrangement (220) including a spool (44) and a multi-fiber cable (30) wrapped about the spool (44), the multi-fiber optical cable (30) having a first end terminated by a first hardened multi-fiber connector (HMFOC) (32) and a second end terminated by a second HMFOC (at 36a, see Fig. 8, P0051 – the another distribution cable plugged into the outer port of the adapters of 36a);
a plurality of indexing terminals (36) each including a terminal housing (42, Figs. 13-31) including a first HMFOC port (one of 518), a second HMFOC port (one of 516), and a hardened single fiber drop port (another of 516), the hardened single fiber drop port (other 516s) being configured for receiving a hardened single fiber connector (ends of the cable) that terminates an end of a drop cable (50, 55), and
wherein the indexing terminals (36) are linked together in the field by plugging the first HMFOC (one end of a cable) into the second HMFOC port of one of the indexing terminals (36a) and plugging the second HMFOC (one end of another cable) into the first HMFOC port of another of the indexing terminals (36b) (P0051-0052).
5. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 22, wherein one or more indexing terminals (36) of the plurality of indexing terminals is coupled to a mounting bracket (1000).
6. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 5, wherein the mounting bracket (1000) is coupled to a first flange (1050), the first flange (1050) included in a slack storage spool (1052).
7. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 6, the slack storage spool (1052) coupled to a second flange (1054) of a payout spool (904) so that the payout spool (904) and the slack storage spool (1052) have a common axis (see Fig. 31).
8. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 7, wherein the payout spool (904) extends between the second flange (1054) and a third flange (bottom flange of 904, see Fig. 31).
9. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 8, wherein the first flange (1050) is spaced from the second flange (1054) in an opposite direction from the third flange (bottom of 904) (see Fig. 31).
10. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 7, wherein the mounting bracket (1000) and the indexing terminal (36) rotate in unison with the payout spool during deployment of a fiber optic cable (P0047).
11. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 7, wherein the payout spool (904) is removable (the arrangement can be mounted and removed from a pole as discussed).
12. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 7, further comprising a multi-service terminal (the notch in 904, see Figs. 30-31) coupled to the third flange (bottom of 904) and configured to rotate in unison with the payout spool (904) during deployment of the fiber optic cable (P0047).
13. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 5, wherein the mounting bracket (1000) is configured to secure the indexing terminal to a pole (40) (P0080).
14. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 5, wherein the mounting bracket (1000) includes a sleeve (1056) having latches (1062) configured to secure the indexing terminal (36) to the mounting bracket (1000) (P0106).
19. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 22, wherein the first and second HMFOC ports (46) define twelve fiber positions (see Fig. 13, twelve connector locations).
20. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 22, further comprising a housing (42) carrying the first and second HMFOC ports (46).
23. The fiber optic indexing arrangement of claim 22, wherein the first and second HMFOC's each accommodate at least 12 optical fibers (P0059).
24. The fiber optic indexing arrangement of claim 23, wherein the first and second HMFOC's each accommodate more than 12 optical fibers (P0059, up to 48).
Smith does not teach expressly each indexing terminal including internal optical indexing optical fibers that optically connect the first HMFOC port to the second HMFOC port, the indexing optical fibers being arranged in an indexed configuration, each indexing terminal including a drop optical fiber that optically connects the first HMFOC port to the hardened single fiber drop port.
Conner teaches indexing terminals (18/318; Figs. 1, 5) wherein each indexing terminal (318) including internal optical indexing optical fibers (Fs) that optically connect a first HMFOC port (at 26; the cable port can have a connector; P0080) to a second HMFOC port (22), the indexing optical fibers (Fs) being arranged in an indexed configuration (see Fig. 5), each indexing terminal including a drop optical fiber (F1 1-4) that optically connects the first HMFOC port (26) to the hardened single fiber drop port (28).
Conner further teaches:
3. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 22, further comprising a splitter (40) positioned within an indexing terminal (318) of the plurality of indexing terminals for splitting a signal conveyed from a fiber position (F1) of the first multi-fiber connection location (26) to the drop output (28).
4. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 3, wherein the splitter (40) is a passive optical power splitter (P0062).
21. The fiber optic arrangement of claim 20, wherein a housing (318) carries a splitter (40) and a third hardened HMFOC port (22 or one of the 28s).
25. The fiber optic indexing arrangement of claim 22, wherein the hardened single fiber drop port (28) of each indexing terminal (318) is one of a plurality of hardened single fiber drop ports (four shown, see Fig. 5).
Smith and Conner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic arrangements.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement taught by Smith to include the indexing taught by Conner.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow drop cables extending from a subscriber premises to be optically coupled to the fiber optic network at an optical connection terminal more closely located to the subscriber premises as opposed to an optical connection terminal located more distantly or at the actual mid-span access location provided on the distribution cable. Thus, the overall length of the drop cables may be substantially reduced (Conner, P0046).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights