Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Thirty-three sheets for formal drawings were filed July 19, 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 with respect to Group III, in the reply filed on May 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction of Group I with respect to Group II. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 has now been amended to further recite at least one fiber optic equipment tray is extendable relative to the chassis. This is not found persuasive because the invention of Group I still does not require at least one side ledge as recited in the invention of Group II and thus the combination still does not require the particulars of the subcombination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 13 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,452,148. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 13 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,452,148 teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,014 teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1-11.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, “and extendable relative to the chassis the chassis” should be changed to “and extendable relative to the chassis” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smrha et al. (US 7,570,860) in view of Coburn et al. (US 2009/0214171 A1) in view of Wagner et al. (US 7,689,089 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Smrha discloses a fiber optic apparatus (10 in Fig. 1), comprising: a chassis (12) configured to be disposed in an equipment rack (paragraph 0053), the chassis comprising opposite front and rear chassis ends that are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1); at least one fiber optic equipment tray (34) configured to be disposed in and extendable relative to the chassis the chassis; a plurality of module guides (66) disposed in the chassis; and a plurality of fiber optic modules (60) configured to be supported adjacent to each other on the at least one fiber optic equipment tray, wherein each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules is slideably mounted onto the chassis, wherein each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules is configured to move and be guided between a different pair of laterally spaced module guides of the plurality of module guides, wherein each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules is configured to be independently movable in the longitudinal direction relative to the chassis (see Fig. 1), and wherein each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules comprises a plurality of first fiber optic adapters (58).
Still regarding claims 1 and 11, Smrha teaches the claimed invention except for an enclosed module. Coburn discloses a chassis (see Fig. 6), comprising a plurality of fiber optic modules which each comprise a front end, a rear end, opposing sides, an enclosed interior (34 in Fig. 2) disposed intermediate to the front end and the rear end and intermediate to the opposing sides, and a plurality of first fiber optic adapters (14) disposed through the front end and a fiber optic adapter (16) disposed at the rear. Since both of the 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 an enclosed module as disclosed by Coburn in the device of Smrha for the purpose of providing enhanced protection for the optical fibers.
Still regarding claims 1 and 11, Smrha further discloses detents 72, 74 engaging with projections 70 on the guides 66 to selectively retain or lock the module 60 to the tray in paragraphs 0033-0034. The proposed combination of Smrha and Coburn teaches the claimed invention except for a front module latch. Wagner discloses a fiber optic module (150 in Fig. 19) comprising a locking feature which comprises a front module latch (128) adjacent a plurality of fiber optic adapters (156) for releasably retaining (122) the fiber optic module. Since all of the 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 front module latch as disclosed by Wagner in the device of the proposed combination of Smrha and Coburn for the purpose of securing retaining the module. Further, in the proposed combination, locking the module would necessarily involve interlocking the fiber optic module with the at least one fiber optic equipment tray since all of the components of the chassis are fastened together.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Smrha further discloses the chassis comprises a rear section, and a rear portion of each module guide of the plurality of module guides defines at least one guide channel (64) in Fig. 1. The proposed combination of Smrha, Coburn and Wagner teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating modules configured to be installed from the rear chassis end. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to permit each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules to be installed in the chassis from the rear chassis end and from the front chassis end for the purpose of enhancing the convenience for a user and maintaining the benefits of rear installation features.
Regarding claim 3, Smrha discloses the plurality of module guides are configured to support the plurality of fiber optic modules in different levels, with each level of the different levels supporting multiple fiber optic modules of the plurality of fiber optic modules in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 4-6, Coburn further discloses duplex LC adapters in Fig. 1 and paragraph 0022. The proposed combination of Smrha, Coburn and Wagner teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the number of connectors and modules. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive six duplex LC fiber optic connectors, and each level of the plurality of levels is configured to receive four fiber optic modules of the plurality of fiber optic modules for the purpose of coupling a larger number of fibers and increasing the density of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Smrha further discloses supporting modules in three different levels in Fig. 1. The proposed combination of Smrha, Coburn and Wagner teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the dimensions and number optical connections. 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 dimensions and optical connections in order to increase the density of the device, 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 claims 8, Coburn in view of the rejection above, further discloses each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules further comprises: at least one second fiber optic adapter (16) disposed through the rear end of the fiber optic module; and optical fibers (36) establishing connections between the plurality of first fiber optic adapters and the at least one second fiber optic adapter in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 10, Smrha discloses each fiber optic module of the plurality of fiber optic modules comprises at least one laterally extending protrusion configured to cooperate with at least one module guide of the plurality of module guides (paragraph 0033 discloses that the projections 70 can be formed on the rail members 64 while the detents are formed on the guides 66).
Concise Description of Relevance
The additional references listed in the Notice of References Cited relate to fiber optic distribution frames and auxiliary devices mounted within.
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 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights