DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on January 26, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending (claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups).
Claims 1-16 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim at issue.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 2, 2025, June 18, 2024, and December 22, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (twenty-nine (29) pages) were received on December 22, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claim 1, the term “a second fiber optic adapter port” should be updated, for example, to featured language such as “a second distinct (or the like to “distinct”) fiber optic adapter port”, because the previous term for “a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports” read as “one or more.” Therefore, using an identifier such as “second”, standing alone, to describe a “fiber optic adapter port” could cause later claim confusion. If there is “one or more” first fiber optic adapter ports then the 2nd (of this plurality) could be confused with a ”second fiber optic adapter port.” Therefore, without further clarifying language, especially in further dependent claims, confusion may result for such terminology. Further regarding dependent claims 5, 8, 9, and 11, the term “the fiber optic module assembly” should read ‘the at least one fiber optic module assembly” for consistency with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the assembly" in the claim preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the assembly” is not clearly defined previously in the claims (11 or 1). Therefore, it is not immediately clear which term is being referred, as an assembly is defined with different meaning in claims 11 and/or independent claim 1. Claim 13 is therefore rejected herein as being indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 14-16 are also rejected herein at least as further depending from claim 13.
Claims 9 and 11 recite a “first optic module assembly is a first fiber optic module assembly” and “further comprising a second fiber optic module assembly” in the claim body. However, claim 1 originally recites “at least one fiber optic module assembly.” Therefore, the language of claims 9 and 11 lack proper antecedent basis because they are defining terms that are unclear. Those claims conflict with the language of claim 1. Further, regarding dependent claims 13 and 14 (which depend from claim 11), the added “third” through “sixth” fiber optic module assemblies are listed. Claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 are therefore rejected herein as being indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 12, 15, and 16 are also rejected herein at least as further depending from claims 11 and/or 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooke et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,606,014 B2.
Cooke et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,606,014 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 2A, 6, 8, 9, 10, 19, 21-23, 28, 29, 31; corresponding text; Claims, notably dependent claims 2 and 16) a patch panel assembly comprising: an outer housing having a main body and an interior chamber (Technical Background: inside an “equipment rack or housing”); a fiber optic equipment tray (“Tray”) being movable relative to the main body (slidable / movable trays for access), the fiber optic equipment tray having a support surface (where optical connector modules are located); and at least one fiber optic module assembly coupled to the support surface, the at least one fiber optic module assembly comprising: a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports configured to receive corresponding first connectors of a cable assembly; and a second fiber optic adapter port configured to receive a second connector of the cable assembly, the second fiber optic adapter port positioned adjacent the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and being different than the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports, wherein the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and the second fiber optic adapter port are aligned with one another along a single plane (see independent claims 1 and 15; with features of dependent claims 2 and 16: first is “simple or duplex LC” and second is “MPO”, alignment in a plane is a frame-of-reference met by Cooke), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, see Cooke ‘014 dependent claims 2 and 16.
Regarding claim 3, the alignment can be horizontal plane in a frame of reference.
Regarding claim 9, the first through fourth adapter ports can be met by Cooke because there are at least 4 adapter ports shown (note also claims 4 and 18).
Regarding claim 10, the ports can manage polarity between connectors (Fig. 4; column 8, lines 26-44), which meets the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 11, multiple trays are shown in various figures, for compact location and the ability to be served by a technician (Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 19, 21, e.g.).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) – (2) as being anticipated by Wiltjer et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,228,782 B2 (published at least as early as WO 2016/040548 A1 (in the year 2016)).
Wiltjer et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,228,782 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 36-42; corresponding text for these Figs.; Claims) a patch panel assembly comprising: an outer housing having a main body and an interior chamber (housed); a fiber optic equipment tray being movable relative to the main body (slidable / movable trays for access), the fiber optic equipment tray having a support surface (where optical connector modules are located); and at least one fiber optic module assembly coupled to the support surface, the at least one fiber optic module assembly comprising: a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports configured to receive corresponding first connectors of a cable assembly; and a second fiber optic adapter port configured to receive a second connector of the cable assembly, the second fiber optic adapter port positioned adjacent the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and being different than the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports, wherein the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and the second fiber optic adapter port are aligned with one another along a single plane (LC and/or MPO; column 9, line 59 through column 12, line 31; alignment in a plane is a frame-of-reference met by Wiltjer), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, see Wiltjer, see the description of Figs. 36-42 in column 9, line 59 through column 12, line 31), which meets MPO and LC.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barry et al. US 2011/0299822 A1.
Barry et al. US 2011/0299822 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 13; corresponding text, see paragraphs [0028] – [0035]; Claims) a patch panel assembly 100 comprising: an outer housing having a main body and an interior chamber (must be housed, not shown expressly in Figs., [0028]); a fiber optic equipment tray 1300 being movable relative to the main body (slidable / movable trays for access, Fig. 13), the fiber optic equipment tray having a support surface (front face of tray(s) where optics located/mounted); and at least one fiber optic module assembly coupled to the support surface, the at least one fiber optic module assembly comprising: a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports configured to receive corresponding first connectors of a cable assembly (Fig. 2 and paras [0033] – [0034]); and a second fiber optic adapter port configured to receive a second connector of the cable assembly, the second fiber optic adapter port positioned adjacent the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and being different than the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports, wherein the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and the second fiber optic adapter port are aligned with one another along a single plane (can be different as in Figs. 1 and 13; alignment both vertical and horizontal thus meets the claim frame-of-reference), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole examined independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 11, and 13, see cited features above for all such structure, and the note the Extended / Annex to the EPO Search ‘779.5 and recited language from the IDS dated 6/18/2024.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of Lane U.S. Patent No. 9,488,795 B2 (Figs. 1 and 4; column 2, line 24 through column 3, line 22; column 3, line 67 through column 6, line 62; Claims), Rodriguez US 2017/0153399 A1 (Figs. 5 and 6B; paragraphs [0003] – [0007] and [0020] – [0031]), and Giraud US 2016/0062055 A1 (Figs. 3A, 8, 9; paragraphs [0072], [0073]). See cited features above for all such structure, and the note the Extended / Annex to the EPO Search ‘779.5 and recited language from the IDS dated 6/18/2024.
Regarding independent claim 1, Lane US ‘795, Rodriguez US ‘399, and Giraud US ‘055 each clearly and fully anticipate all structure found in claim 1. Note that the “inventive concept” or gist of claim 1 appears to be that a slidable/movable tray in a housing is capable of supporting at least two distinct/different types of optical connection / adapter ports in/on the tray. Such feature is not novel and found within many prior art references, to include at least Lane US ‘795, Rodriguez US ‘399, and Giraud US ’055. Those references teach patch panel assembly comprising: an outer housing having a main body and an interior chamber; a fiber optic equipment tray being movable relative to the main body the fiber optic equipment tray having a support surface; and at least one fiber optic module assembly coupled to the support surface, the at least one fiber optic module assembly comprising: a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports configured to receive corresponding first connectors of a cable assembly; and a second fiber optic adapter port configured to receive a second connector of the cable assembly, the second fiber optic adapter port positioned adjacent the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and being different than the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports, wherein the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and the second fiber optic adapter port are aligned with one another along a single plane (can be different in each reference herein).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 5-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry et al. US 2011/0299822 A1, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1, Barry et al. US 2011/0299822 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 13; corresponding text, see paragraphs [0028] – [0035]; Claims) a patch panel assembly 100 comprising: an outer housing having a main body and an interior chamber (must be housed, not shown expressly in Figs., [0028]); a fiber optic equipment tray 1300 being movable relative to the main body (slidable / movable trays for access, Fig. 13), the fiber optic equipment tray having a support surface (front face of tray(s) where optics located/mounted); and at least one fiber optic module assembly coupled to the support surface, the at least one fiber optic module assembly comprising: a first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports configured to receive corresponding first connectors of a cable assembly (Fig. 2 and paras [0033] – [0034]); and a second fiber optic adapter port configured to receive a second connector of the cable assembly, the second fiber optic adapter port positioned adjacent the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and being different than the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports, wherein the first plurality of fiber optic adapter ports and the second fiber optic adapter port are aligned with one another along a single plane (can be different as in Figs. 1 and 13; alignment both vertical and horizontal thus meets the claim frame-of-reference). Barry also teaches intervening dependent claims 2-4, 11, and 13.
Further regarding dependent claims 5-10, 12, and 14-16, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs such features in Barry but also includes such optical adapter and connector type features for a movable tray in a housing, for access by a technician with different adapter types. However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the optical adapter / connector add ons, for capacity and variable features of optical communications, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Barry to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (adapters, fibers, number of optical sub-elements) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve communications by implementing known design choices for distribution boxes and chassis that house connectivity componentry. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a patch panel assembly such as in Barry. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is clearly anticipated by Barry and a plethora of other prior art references. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Barry to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5-10, 12, and 14-16. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references C and D, which pertain to the state of the art of housings / trays that include multiple optical adapters and connectors.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested to substantially amend sole examined independent claim 1 with structural features, based on the large number of prior art references that clearly and fully anticipate claim 1’s broad scope (metes-and-bounds).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights