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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08/07/23, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Claim 1 is objected to because:
Claim recites the limitation "the routing element" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krampotich et al. (8155494 B2) in view of O'Connor et al. (US-20130077927-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5 and 15) disclose a cable management tray system comprising: an enclosure (12) comprising a first side wall (22) and a second side wall (22), each of the first and second side walls having a front end (16) and a back end (20); and a tray (26) slidably mounted to the enclosure (12) and movable between an open position and a closed position (column 3, lines 21-23), the tray having a front end (36), a back end (38), a first side (18) and a second side (18), the tray comprising: a bottom wall (40); a routing system comprising one or more spooling elements (60, 66, 68) mounted on the bottom wall (40), the routing system being configured to retain a portion of a cable length received on the tray when the tray is moved between the open and the closed position (column 5, lines 51-52 and column 5, line 62-column 6, line 1); and a first cable opening (42) extending along the first side (18) of the tray and a second cable opening (44) extending along the second side (18) of the tray, each of the first and second cable openings (42, 44) extending between the front end and the back end of the tray (26), each cable opening allowing a portion of the cable length to extend from the routing element to a respective cable guide to slide relative to the front end and back end as the tray is moved between the open position and the closed position (column 3, lines 37-42).
Krampotich et al. do not explicitly disclose a first cable guide and a second cable guide, each said cable guide being configured to guide a portion of the cable, wherein the first cable guide is mounted to the first side wall of the enclosure and the second cable guide is mounted to the second side wall of the enclosure, wherein each said cable guide defines the front end of the respective side wall.
However, O'Connor et al. (figures 1-3) teach an optical device including a first cable guide (50) and a second cable guide (50), each said cable guide being configured to guide a portion of the cable, wherein the first cable guide (50) is mounted to the first side wall (12) of the enclosure and the second cable guide (50) is mounted to the second side wall (12) of the enclosure, wherein each said cable guide defines the front end (40) of the respective side wall (12) (figures 1-3). 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 Krampotich et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of O'Connor) for the purpose of routing the interconnecting and storing fiber optic cables ([0017]).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the routing system (60, 66, 68) is located in a central location within the tray (26).
With respect to claim 4, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the routing system (60, 66, 68) is centered on an area that corresponds to a midpoint of the tray translation (figure 1-2), wherein the tray translation is the distance traveled by the tray between open and closed positions (column 3, lines 21-23).
With respect to claim 5, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein at least one of the one or more spooling elements (60, 66, 68) are located proximal to a centerline location between the front end and the back end (figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 6, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the spooling elements (60, 66, 68) are arranged in a symmetrical configuration relative to a centerline extending from the front end to the back end of the tray (figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 7, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the spooling elements (60, 66, 68) are arranged in a symmetrical configuration relative to a line extending from the first side to the second side of the tray (26) (figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 8, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) substantially disclose the cable management tray system except the tray further comprises two pairs of cable guiding walls configured to guide and constrain movement of the cables when the tray is moved between the open and closed position.
However, O'Connor et al. (figures 1-3) teach an optical device including the tray further comprises two pairs of cable guiding walls (50, 54) configured to guide and constrain movement of the cables when the tray is moved between the open and closed position (figures 1-3). 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 Krampotich et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of O'Connor) for the purpose of routing the interconnecting and storing fiber optic cables ([0017]).
With respect to claim 9, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) substantially disclose the cable management tray system except a first pair of cable guiding walls is located adjacent to the back end of the tray and a second pair cable guiding walls is located adjacent to the front end of the tray, wherein each guiding wall extends inwardly from the general area of a respective corner of the tray, toward the central area of the tray.
However, O'Connor et al. (figures 1-3) teach an optical device including a first pair of cable guiding walls is located adjacent to the back end of the tray and a second pair cable guiding walls (50, 54) is located adjacent to the front end of the tray (figures 1-3), wherein each guiding wall extends inwardly from the general area of a respective corner of the tray, toward the central area of the tray (12) (figures 2 and 4). 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 Krampotich et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of O'Connor) for the purpose of routing the interconnecting and storing fiber optic cables ([0017]).
With respect to claim 10, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein when the tray (26) is in the closed position, the entire tray is contained within the enclosure (figure 3).
With respect to claim 11, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein when the tray (26) is in the closed position, a major portion of the tray is contained within the enclosure (figure 3).
With respect to claim 12, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the portion of the tray (26) that is not contained within the enclosure is covered by a tray cover (figure 3).
With respect to claim 13, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the tray cover is pivotably mounted to the tray (column 4, lines 35-38).
With respect to claim 14, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the enclosure (12) is configured to be mounted (14) on a structure (column 3, lines 6-8).
With respect to claim 15, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the structure is a telecommunication equipment rack (column 3, lines 6-8).
With respect to claim 16, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) substantially disclose the cable management tray system except the telecommunication equipment rack is one of a 19-inch telecommunication equipment rack and a 23- inch telecommunication equipment rack.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). 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 Krampotich to form the above features, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 17, Krampotich et al. (figures 1, 2, 5) disclose the cable management tray system, wherein the cable management tray system is configured for use with a fiber cable (column 5, lines 51-52).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Geens et al. (US-20180231730-A1) and Coan et al. (US-9223106-B2) disclose a fiber enclosure.
8. 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