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
Applicant’s election of group III, claims 8-15, in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/01/24 and 11/25/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
4. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcouiller et al. (US 20110280525 A1) in view of Jones (US 5774618 A).
With respect to claim 8, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) disclose a splice unit for a spliced cable connection, comprising a splice module (710) configured for positioning within an enclosure (700), the splice module (710) including a first cable anchoring portion (cable retention member 720 and a lock 730) for securing to a first cable (110), a second cable anchoring portion (cable retention member 720 and a lock 730) for securing to a second cable (120), a cable routing portion (space within the enclosure tube 710) for routing the first cable (110) and the second cable (120) within the splice module, and a splice protection tube (705) surrounding a splice between the first cable (110) and the second cable (120).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marcouiller et al. do not explicitly disclose a splice protection tube holding portion for accommodating a splice protection tube.
However, Jones (figure 1) teaches an optical device including a splice protection tube holding portion (splice tray 49 is adapted to hold a plurality of stacked splice holders 52) for accommodating a splice (figure 1). 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 Marcouiller et al. to include the splice protection tube holding portion (accordance with the teaching of Jones) for the purpose of supporting the splice tray within the closure (column 3, line 30).
With respect to claim 9, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) disclose the splice unit, further comprising a first cable grommet (740) and a first cable grommet stopper (750) for providing a first water-tight seal between the first cable and the enclosure (700), and a second cable grommet (740’) and a second cable grommet stopper (780) for providing a second water-tight seal between the second cable and the enclosure (figure 118).
With respect to claim 10, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) disclose the splice unit, wherein the first water-tight seal is created by compressing the first cable grommet (740) between the first cable grommet stopper (750) and the enclosure (710, 760, 790), and the second water-tight seal is created by compressing the second cable grommet (740’) between the second cable grommet stopper (780) and the enclosure (710, 760, 790).
With respect to claim 11, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) disclose the splice unit, further comprising the enclosure (710, 760, 790).
With respect to claim 12, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) disclose the splice unit, wherein the enclosure comprises a first enclosure portion (710, 760) having a first body with an opening for the first cable (110), and a second enclosure portion (790) having a second body with an opening for the second cable (120).
With respect to claim 13, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the first enclosure portion comprises a catch, and the second enclosure portion comprises a lever and a latch, the lever movably attaching the latch to the second body, and wherein the first enclosure portion and second enclosure portion are configured for mating to one another by positioning the catch and latch to engage with one another and moving the lever to secure the catch to the latch.
However, Jones (figure 1) teaches an optical device including the first enclosure portion comprises a catch (16), and the second enclosure portion comprises a lever and a latch (17), the lever movably attaching the latch to the second body, and wherein the first enclosure portion and second enclosure portion are configured for mating to one another by positioning the catch and latch to engage with one another and moving the lever to secure the catch to the latch (column 5, lines 23-34). 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 Marcouiller et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Jones) for the purpose of supporting the splice tray within the closure (column 3, line 30).
With respect to claim 14, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except at least one of the first enclosure portion or the second enclosure portion comprises an O-ring.
However, Jones (figure 1) teaches an optical device including at least one of the first enclosure portion or the second enclosure portion comprises an O-ring (18). 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 Marcouiller et al. to include the above feature (accordance with the teaching of Jones) for the purpose of supporting the splice tray within the closure (column 3, line 30).
With respect to claim 15, Marcouiller et al. (figure 118) substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the enclosure comprises: a first enclosure portion having a first body with first multiple openings, including an opening for the first cable; and a second enclosure portion having a second body with second multiple openings, including an opening for the second cable.
However, the first body with first multiple openings, including an opening for the first cable; and the second body with second multiple openings, including an opening for the second cable are considered to be obvious to provide higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. 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 Marcouiller to include the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Claessens et al. (US-10663684-B2) disclose a fiber optic module. Morioka et al. (US-20160139341-A1) disclose an optical fiber splicing unit. Allen (US-20150117829-A1) teaches a fiber management tray.
10. 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