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 01/29/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wittmeier et al. (US 20210223494 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wittmeier et al. (figures 2-7) disclose a fiber optic closure, the closure comprising: a plurality of sidewalls (162, 164) extending along a longitudinal axis (102) between a first end (116, 156) and a second end (118, 158), wherein the first end forms an open end such that a cable (42) is extendable to or from an interior (120, 160) formed by the plurality of sidewalls ([0032] and [0041]); a base wall (166) extending from the plurality of sidewalls along the longitudinal axis (102) and a lateral axis (104); an end wall (212) extending along the lateral axis (104) between the plurality of sidewalls (206, 208); a bracket assembly (140) extending along a transverse axis (106), the bracket assembly (140) comprising a main body (142) and a plurality of hinge assemblies (144), wherein the plurality of hinge assemblies (144) is spaced apart in a linear array along the transverse axis (106), wherein the main body (142) is angled between a transverse axis (106) and a longitudinal axis (102).
Wittmeier et al. do not explicitly disclose the main body is angled at 45 degrees or greater between a transverse axis and a longitudinal axis.
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 Wittmeier to form the main body is angled at 45 degrees or greater between a transverse axis and a longitudinal axis as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
456
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Wittmeier et al. disclose the fiber optic closure, the plurality of hinge assemblies (144) forming a channel extending along the lateral axis (figure 4).
With respect to claim 3, Wittmeier et al. disclose the fiber optic closure, wherein the plurality of hinge assemblies (144) forms an arcuate opening into the channel (figure 4).
With respect to claim 4, Wittmeier et al. disclose the fiber optic closure, wherein the plurality of hinge assemblies (144) forms an arcuate opening, the arcuate opening comprising faces extending substantially flat at a chord from the channel (figure 4).
With respect to claims 10-11, Wittmeier et al. disclose the fiber optic closure, the plurality of sidewalls forming an end tab at the second end, the end tab extending along the longitudinal axis from an interior surface of the plurality of sidewalls (figure 2) and the plurality of sidewalls forming a slot extending substantially along the transverse axis from the end tab (see figure 2).
With respect to claim 12, Wittmeier et al. disclose the fiber optic closure, comprising: a cover plate (130) releasably attachable to the plurality of sidewalls, the cover plate (130) rotatable between an open position and a closed position (figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-9 and 13-14 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.
9. Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 15. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a fiber optic closure as set forth in claim 15.
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daoud (US-6453107-B1) discloses a fiber enclosure. Krampotich (US-7418182-B2) discloses a cable management.
11. 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