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 .
Detailed Action
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Claim 1 and 6 are allowed because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are allowable because of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IM CHAE “HYEON”, KR 20160034762 A (see provided translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hyeon teaches an optical fiber organization system (see figs1-16; summary).
a fiber organizer having a generally planar bottom portion having a plurality of linear grooves defined thereon (clearly shown in at least figs. 5 and 6; see disclosure), the plurality of linear grooves being oriented along in parallel along a longitudinal axis; the fiber organizer having a generally planar top portion being rotatably coupled to the generally planar bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 5 and 6; see disclosure), the top portion being rotatable between a fully-open position providing access to the plurality of linear grooves and a fully-closed position adapted to securely enclose the plurality of linear grooves (clearly shown in at least figs. 5 and 6; se disclosure); and
PNG
media_image3.png
526
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of linear grooves encased between the top and bottom portions is adapted to accommodate and hold a length of at least one optical fiber laid substantially linearly within the linear groove and extending beyond the fiber organizer along the longitudinal axis (clearly shown in at least figs. 5 and 6; see disclosure).
However, Hyeon is silent on explicitly stating the fiber organization system shown in fig. 1, with its trays as “fiber organizer”. Nonetheless, it is obvious/well-known to an ordinary skilled in the art that such tray having grooves organizing the optical fibers is/known as “optical fiber organizer” so as to provide orderly manner of the optical fibers for optical communications with predictable results.
Hyeon further teaches:
13. (Currently Amended) The optical fiber organization system of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of linear grooves is adapted to accommodate and hold at least two optical fibers extending beyond the fiber organizer along the longitudinal axis of the linear grooves (see at least figs. 14 and 15, where the each groove can hold at least two optical fibers; note that one can also place multiple fibers into each groove by choosing for example smaller diameter optical fibers).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
14. (Currently Amended) The optical fiber organization system of claim 12,wherein a stacking guide is disposed on outer surfaces of the top and bottom portions for facilitating alignment of a plurality of fully-closed top and bottom portions in a stacked orientation and inhibit lateral displacement from the stacked orientation (shown in art least figs. 3 and 7).
16. (Currently Amended) The optical fiber organization system of claim 12,further comprising a longitudinal alignment guide disposed on outer surfaces of the bottom portion for facilitating alignment of a series of fully-closed top and bottom portions longitudinally in an end- to-end orientation (clearly shown in at least figs. 3 and 7 with shown a longitudinal alignment guide or alignment guide).
17. (Currently Amended) The optical fiber organization system of claim 12,wherein an outer surface of the top portion comprises an identification label holder (such limitation is not germane to the invention and further such limitation is extremely conventional, i.e., US 20230266541 A1; so as to identify the content of an optical device).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IM CHAE “HYEON”, KR 20160034762 A (see provided translation), as applied in rejection of claims 12-17, above, and further in view of Peterson US 10890730 B2. .
Regarding claims 18-19, Hyoen does not teach A) ‘wherein an outer edge of the fiber organizer has defined thereon at least one notch adapted to engage at least one strap used to securely bundle the plurality of fully-closed top and bottom portions in the stacked orientation” B) wherein each of the plurality of linear grooves is adapted to accommodate and hold at least three optical fibers within the linear grooves and extending beyond the fiber organize. Nonetheless, for regard limitation B, Hyeon teaches that each groove an hold two optical fibers as shown in figs. 14 and 15, nonetheless, though it is arguable that one or ordinary skill in the art can place multiple fibers into each groove by merely using smaller diameter optical fibers in the groove rather two optical fibers for example. For clarity reason Peterson teaches a grove holder with plurality of grooves in which each groove can hold three or more optical fibers within tubes as shown in at least figs.. 2 and 5 and col. 4, 4th parag. and col. 8, 2nd parag.). Hyeon further teaches limitation A, as shown in fig. 7, with strap and a notch such as 200, 602…). Thus, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art when the invention was made to modify Hyeon’s optical fiber organizer using the teachings of Peterson that includes limitations A and B so as to provide improved devices for terminating trunk cables and securing them at or near their point of connection to telecommunications equipment (see background summary).
Response to Argument and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/25, have been considered but are persuasive. Applicant asserts that ‘Claim 12 has been amended to highlight the differences with Hyeon, i.e., the optical fibers are laid substantially linearly within the linear grooves, unlike Hyeon where the fibers are installed vertically within the top and bottom portions of the case. The Examiner responds that as shown in at least figs. 5-6 the optical fibers are laid substantially linearly within the linear grooves meeting the claimed invention irrespective of whether the bottom or the top portion are in open (i.e., vertically) or closed (horizontally) position.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
This action in response to applicant’s amendment made FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CF
R 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. 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.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874