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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Vincent does not include a slot that extends along a height of a sidewall at the distal end of the base module: The slots (6a, 9a) are formed at the distal end (top of 2 that extends from 6a across to 52 and continuing to 9a, see Fig. 2). The slots (6a, 9a) also extend along a height of the sidewall since the slots are U-shaped (see Fig. 2). The U-shape is formed by the base (bottom of the U) and the sidewalls (forming the upper arms of the U-shaped slots). Further, regarding the argument that Vincent does not include a corresponding tab that engages that slot extending along the height of the sidewall at the distal end of the base module: The slot extending along the height of the sidewall at the distal end of the base module has been discussed already. Vincent teaches tabs (60b, 90b) that engage the slots. This is all the limitation requires. The rejection has been updated to reflect these new limitations.
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 29, 31-36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al (US 6,915,057 B2).
Vincent teaches:
29. A fiber optic splice organizer (1, Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a tray (2, 20, 200) configured for attachment to a mounting bracket (part of 300) and to pivotally move between a stacked position (shown in Figs. 3-4) and an unstacked position (when a tray is pivoted out; C4 L25-38), the tray (2, 20, 200) including:
a base (2) having a first length extending from a proximal end (at 7) to a distal end (from 6a, across past 52 to 9a) (see Fig. 1), the proximal end (at 7) of the base (2) being pivotally attached to the mounting bracket by a hinge (housing support, not shown, C4 L25-61), and the base (2) further having a width extending between first and second lateral sides (6 to 7) of the base (2) (see Fig. 1); and
a sidewall (see the sidewall body of 2) at least partially surrounding the first and second lateral sides and the distal end (Fig. 1), the sidewall and the base defining an interior volume for storing fiber optic splices (at 51, 52; C3 L46 – C4 L13), and the sidewall at the distal end (at 6a, 9a) having at a slot (6a, 9a) extending along a height of the sidewall (see Fig. 2, the sidewall form the U-shaped slots 6a, 9a, the U-shape is formed by the bottom wall and the heights of the sidewalls) at the distal end (at 6a, 9a) of the tray (2); and
a modular extension (20) configured for attachment to the distal end of the tray (2) to extend the length of the tray (1), the modular extension (20) providing a storage area for storing fiber optic equipment (C5 L10-34);
wherein the modular extension (20) includes a corresponding tab (60b, 90b) engages the slots (6a, 9a) extending along the height of the sidewall (again, the U-shaped slots are formed from the bottom wall and the height of the sidewalls) at the distal end (at 6a, 9a) of the tray (2) (C6 L31-35).
30. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein a proximal end of the modular extension (20) attaches to the distal end of the tray (2) by slotting one or more tabs (60b, 90b) at the proximal end of the modular extension (20) into one or more slots (6a, 9a) on the sidewall of the tray (2), and snap fitting a tab (part of 60b, 90b) on the proximal end of the modular extension (20) into a receptacle (part of 6a, 9a) defined on the distal end of the tray (C6 L31-35).
32. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29,wherein the sidewall of the tray (2) has a first height, the modular extension (20) has a sidewall having a second height, and the second height of the modular extension being equal to the first height of the tray (see Figs. 3-4).
33. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein the modular extension (20) includes a cover (12) that is attached to enclose an interior volume of the modular extension (20) (C5 L64 – C6 L2).
34. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein a sidewall at a distal end of the modular extension (the extension can be considered 20 with 200) has a label area (171-172) for securing a label to the modular extension (C6 L3-5).
35. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein the modular extension (2) includes a base, and the sidewall at least partially surrounds the base to define the storage area (510) (C5 L10-34).
36. The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein the modular extension (20, 200) has an interior volume that provides the storage area for storing fiber optic equipment including connectors (C6 L6-9).
39. (Currently Amended) The fiber optic splice organizer of claim 29, wherein the sidewall at the distal end of the tray (2) has at least one opening (6, 9) providing access from the interior volume of the tray (2) to the storage area (510) of the modular extension (20) (C5 L11-16).
Vincent does not state the extension and tabs are to prevent the modular extension from being pulled off the tray in a direction orthogonal to a direction on which the modular extension is pushed down toward the tray for attachment to the tray. First, applicant states that the additional module of Vincent releasably attaches to the base module by pushing the module in a horizontal plane. It is unclear where applicant is getting this from, because this statement is not supported by the disclose of Vincent. Further, Vincent teaches the structure from the amended portion of claim 1, the modular extension (20) includes tabs (60b, 90b) that engage corresponding tabs (6a, 9a) located at the distal end of the tray (2) (C6 L31-35). The prevention of the extension from being pulled off the tray in a direction orthogonal to a direction the extension is pushed for attachment are functional limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The structure of claim 29 has been taught as described in the rejection therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Regarding claim 31, Vincent teaches the organizer previously discussed, but does not teach a sidewall of the modular extension being about twice as tall as a sidewall of the tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having a sidewall of the modular extension to be twice as tall as a sidewall of the tray, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Vincent teaches a cover (12) that will form a “sidewall” of the extension when it is open and given the depth of the extension one of ordinary skill in the art would expect this height to now be at least twice as tall as the tray sidewall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-44 are allowed.
Claims 37-38 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a fiber optic splice organizer comprising a tray configured for attachment to a mounting bracket and to pivotally move between a stacked position and an unstacked position,
the tray including a base, a width and a sidewall; and
a modular extension attached to the sidewall at the distal end of the tray to extend the length of the tray and a storage area that includes a platform having a first row of adapters on a first side, and the platform having a second row of adapters on a second side, and the platform being pivotable about the first and second sides to provide access to the first and second rows of adapters
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Contact Information
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 on 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874