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
Newly submitted claims 77-81 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention originally claimed (i.e., elected group IIa, containing claims 15, 17-18 {claim 14 is common}; elected without traverse in the reply filed 6/15/26) for the following reasons: None of new claims 77-81 contain limitations from elected claims 17, 18 such as ribs and/or a tool. Moreover, new claims 77-81 contain at least limitation(s) “carrier adapter” not present in the 2/10/25 version of the claims acted on by the Office. Therefore, new claims 77-81 contain subject matter restrictable with respect to elected claims 15, 17-18 at least under related inventions principles.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of the 2/10/25 version of the claims acted on by the Office, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 77-81 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20070099470; “Yang”).
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches a module retainer for retaining a card/organizer/tray/board 3 (e.g., fig. 1) relative to a main support structure 2 (e.g., figs. 1, 2), comprising: a body 41 41’ 41” (e.g., figs. 3-7) configured to snappingly mount (with fixing portions 46; fig. 4) to the main support structure 2 (e.g., figs. 1, 2, 4); a first flexibly resilient arm 44” (e.g., in fig. 7, element 44” extending to the right from the attachment location at 43”) extending from the body 41” to a free end 45” of the first flexibly resilient arm (e.g., fig. 7); and a second flexibly resilient arm {FRA} 44” (e.g., fig. 7; ¶ 0044) extending away from the body [e.g., fig. 7; the spring arms 44 44’ 44” have a thickness that extends away from the top surface body 41/41’/41”; figs. 1-4, 7] and away from the first flexibly resilient arm to a free end of the second flexibly resilient arm (e.g., fig. 7; ¶ 0044; the 2nd FRA 44” in fig. 7 extends to the left from attachment location 43”).
Yang does not explicitly state “for retaining a cable fixation module relative to” and “of an organizer of a telecommunications closure”.
However, it was well-known for a card/organizer/tray/board to have a telecommunications cable fixed thereto [e.g., either via a connector/adaptor or being permanently fixed] and be located in an enclosure thus having the card/organizer/tray/board function by organizing at least the position of a connector/cable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the card/organizer/tray/board to have a tele-communications cable fixed thereto [e.g., either via a connector/adaptor or being permanently fixed] and be located in an enclosure thus having the card/organizer/tray/board function by organizing at least the position of a connector/cable at least for the purpose of producing an optoelectronic assembly such as a receiver/transmitter/transceiver located in an enclosure for protection.
Thus claim 14 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18 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 prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the body includes reinforcement ribs; and wherein a fixed end of each of the flexibility resilient arms is positioned at one of the reinforcement ribs in combination with the rest of claim 17.
It is noted that claim 17 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious each of the first flexibly resilient arm and the second flexibly resilient arm defines a recess configured to receive a tool for flexing the first flexibly resilient arm and the second flexibly resilient arm, respectively in combination with the rest of claim 18.
It is noted that claim 18 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It does not appear that Geens et al. (US 20210011239; “Geens”), even when considering Dona-Contero (US 20050160866), renders as obvious the structure of claim 14 in a reasonable manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. 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 Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights