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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Seventeen sheets for formal drawings were filed September 11, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following reasons(s):
Regarding claim 10, “includes at least on keyway” should be replaced with “includes at least one keyway” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US 2010/0150504 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a fiber optic cable assembly, comprising: a fiber optic cable (10 in Figs. 3-9) carrying a plurality of optical fibers; and a plurality of distribution housings (100) attached to the fiber optic cable along a length of the fiber optic cable, wherein a subset (20) of the plurality of optical fibers carried by the fiber optic cable is terminated at each of the plurality of distribution housings (see Fig. 9; paragraph 0055), wherein each of the plurality of distribution housings includes at least one port interface (225) for accessing the subset of optical fibers terminated at the respective distribution housing.
Regarding claim 2, Allen discloses each of the plurality of distribution housings is disposed about the fiber optic cable such that the subsets of the plurality of optical fibers carried by the fiber optic cable extend into an interior of the respective distribution housing in Figs. 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 3, Allen discloses the fiber optic cable has a radius R relative to a cable axis, and wherein each of the plurality of distribution housings is in-line with the fiber optic cable such that the respective distribution housing is within an envelope about the cable axis of no greater than about 4R, preferably no greater than about 3R, and even more preferably no greater than about 2.5R in Figs. 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 4, Allen discloses for each of the plurality of distribution housings, the port interface comprises: a first interface portion (220) positioned interior of the respective distribution housing and defining a plurality of interior ports; and a second interface portion (225) positioned exterior of the respective distribution housing and defining a plurality of exterior ports, wherein each of the plurality of interior ports is configured to receive one or more of the subset of optical fibers terminated at the respective distribution housing in Figs. 3-6 and paragraph 0059.
Regarding claim 5, Allen discloses the port interface includes a multi-port adapter in Figs. 3-6 and paragraph 0059.
Regarding claim 6, Allen discloses each of the plurality of distribution housings includes at least one recess, and wherein the second interface portion of the at least one port interface is substantially positioned in the at least one recess in Figs. 7 and 8 and paragraph 0065.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Allen discloses a fiber optic cable system, comprising: a fiber optic cable assembly, comprising: a fiber optic cable (10 in Figs. 3-9) carrying a plurality of optical fibers; and a plurality of distribution housings (100) attached to the fiber optic cable along a length of the fiber optic cable, wherein a subset (20) of the plurality of optical fibers carried by the fiber optic cable is terminated at each of the plurality of distribution housings (see Fig. 9; paragraph 0055), wherein each of the plurality of distribution housings includes at least one port interface (225) for accessing the subset of optical fibers terminated at the respective distribution housing; and a plurality of cable hangers (70 in Fig. 9; paragraph 0066) configured to connect the plurality of distribution housings to a cable support (wall in Figs. 17-19) such that the fiber optic cable assembly is suspended from the cable support.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2010/0150504 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Allen teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the width of the port interface. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed width in order to provide adequate space for the optical fiber while reducing the size of the assembly, and 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.
Regarding claim 11, Allen teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating each of the plurality of cable hangers includes a clip or latch for selectively engaging the respective cable hanger with the cable support. However, using clips or latches as a means of attaching optical assemblies are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a clip or latch for selectively engaging the respective cable hanger with the cable support in order to allow for removal of the cable assembly.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Allen teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the cable support includes at least one elongate rail. However, mounting distribution assemblies along a rail is ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the cable support to include at least one elongate rail in order to aerially mount the optical cable. Since Allen discloses adapter terminals placed in any location in Fig. 22, it would be obvious to have the cable hangers slidably connect to the rail to allow for adjustment of the position. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include at least one wall defining a rail interior and an opening through the at least one wall for accessing the rail interior, and wherein each of the plurality of cable hangers includes: a first orientation that allows the respective cable hanger to pass through the opening; and a second orientation that prevents the respective cable hanger from passing through the opening to allow the cable hanger to be selectively inserted or removed.
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2010/0150504 A1) in view of de los Santos Campos et al. (US 2014/0133822 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Allen teaches the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of distribution housings includes at least one keyway. De los Santos Campos, henceforth Santos, discloses a distribution housing (14) including at least one keyway configured as a T-shaped slot (50), and wherein a cable hanger (200) includes a key configured as a T-shaped flange (209). Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a T-shaped keyway as disclosed by Santos in the cable assembly of Allen for the purpose of securely attaching the cable assembly to a mounting structure.
Regarding claim 12, Santos, in view of the rejection above, further discloses each of the plurality of cable hangers includes an enlarged head (200P) for selectively engaging the respective cable hanger with a cable support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights