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 03/22/24, 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 § 102
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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krampotich et al. (US 20130039629 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose an optical fiber cassette structurally configured to enhance fiber management in an optical fiber management system, comprising a first cassette portion (26, 28) that is structurally configured to receive fiber optic cables ([0033] and [0034]); a second cassette portion (76) structurally configured to be removably coupled with the first cassette portion (26, 28) in different orientations (figure5); wherein the first cassette portion (26, 28) is structurally configured to be coupled with an alternate second cassette portion that is structurally configured to be removably coupled with the first cassette portion (figure 9); and wherein the first cassette portion (26, 28) is structurally configured to alternatively and removably receive the second cassette portion (76) and the alternate second cassette portion (78) in a selected orientation such that the first cassette portion, the second cassette portion, and the alternate second cassette portion provide a modular system that permits customization of the cassette so as to enhance optical fiber cable connection and management (figures 13-14).
With respect to claim 19, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the cassette further comprises a splice tray (108) structurally configured to be mounted to the first cassette portion (26, 28) and structurally configured to be movable between an open position and a closed position ([0036-0037]).
With respect to claim 21, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the second cassette portion (76) is structurally configured to receive fiber optic connectors ([0039]).
With respect to claim 22, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the first cassette portion is a cassette base portion (28) (figure 5).
With respect to claim 23, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the second cassette portion (76) is an adapter portion (78).
With respect to claim 24, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the second cassette portion (76) is structurally configured to receive an internal input connector (79) terminating an internal input optical cable ([0034-0035]).
With respect to claim 25, Krampotich et al. (figures 1-8) disclose the cassette, wherein the second cassette portion (76) comprises an input adapter (78) to optically connect the internal input connector to an external input connector ([0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krampotich et al. (as cited above).
With respect to claim 26, Krampotich et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the first cassette portion is structurally configured to alternately receive the second cassette portion in a first orientation and a second orientation, wherein the second orientation is 180 degrees relative to the first orientation.
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 Krampotich to form the second orientation is 180 degrees relative to the first orientation as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 27, Krampotich et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the second cassette portion is structurally configured to receive an external input connector at an angle relative to a longitudinal direction of the second cassette portion, wherein the angle is between 0 and 90 degrees.
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 Krampotich to form the second cassette portion is structurally configured to receive an external input connector at an angle relative to a longitudinal direction of the second cassette portion, wherein the angle is between 0 and 90 degrees as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 20 and 28 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the cassette, wherein the first cassette portion is structurally configured to be coupled with a cassette mount such that the cassette pivots relative to the cassette mount as recited in claim 20 and wherein the cassette further comprises a cable routing portion, the cable routing portion is structurally configured to removably attach to the first cassette portion, and the first cassette portion is structurally configured to attach to the cable routing portion at multiple locations on the first cassette portion as recited in claim 28.
12. Claims 1-17 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose an optical fiber cassette structurally configured to enhance fiber management in an optical fiber management system as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 9. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose an optical fiber cassette structurally configured to enhance fiber management in an optical fiber management system as set forth in claim 9.
Claims 10-17 depend from claim 9.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leeman et al. (US-10031305-B2) disclose a fiber distribution system. And Allen (US-10393981-B2) discloses a fiber management tray.
14. 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