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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed January 25, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as June 22, 2023, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial numbers 63/509,621 and 63/522,556) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional applications.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as January 25, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
US
18422444
01/25/2024
US 20240427104 A1
(Davidson II)
12/26/2024
US
18422472
01/25/2024
US 20240427102 A1
(Davidson III)
12/26/2024
CN
202410260014
03/07/2024
CN 119179151 A
12/24/2024
CN
202410257401
03/07/2024
CN 119179142 A
12/24/2024
CN
202410258696
03/07/2024
CN 119179150 A
12/24/2024
EP
24182434
06/14/2024
EP 4488735 A1
01/08/2025
EP
24182438
06/14/2024
EP 4481454 A1
12/25/2024
EP
24182436
06/14/2024
EP 4481453 A1
12/25/2024
The claims filed June 26, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims are summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/¶ 2)
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 1 and 19 (and by dependency, remaining claims 2-18 and 20) WERE PREVIOUSLY 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks are interpreted herein to mean that an external cable is not a part of the claim, constitutes a workpiece under MPEP § 2115, and is not required for infringement should the claims as currently amended (or sufficiently similar) be allowed.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150355428 of Leeman et al. (Leeman, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Leeman discloses an optical fiber cassette (the figures generally, but especially Figs. 62-69, particularly Fig. 68; ¶ 126 et seq., fiber distribution terminal 700′) configured to receive an external cable (seen as so configured per splitter input connector 720′), the cassette (700’) defining a mutually orthogonal length, width, and height, the cassette (700’) comprising:
a main body (front cover 742) comprising
a pair of sidewalls extending along the length and an end wall extending along the width between the pair of sidewalls (per the lower element in Fig. 68),
the sidewalls and the end wall each extending along the height (Fig. 68),
wherein an adapter wall (Fig. 66 at 718’, generally) is positioned between the sidewalls and positioned along the length distal to the end wall (Fig. 66 at 718’, generally, and as shown/indicated in Fig. 68),
wherein a partition wall (intermediate tray 744) extends between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (per Fig. 68),
wherein the partition wall (744) is positioned along the height between a top lip and a bottom lip of the sidewalls,
wherein a first volume (top/upper side) is formed at a first side of the partition wall (744) between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (718’), and
wherein a second volume (bottom/lower side) is formed at a second side of the partition wall (744) between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (718’),
wherein a fiber storage area (Fig. 68, generally between base 740 and front cover 742 and including tray 744) is positioned at the first volume (top/upper side) and the second volume (bottom/lower side), and
wherein a cable opening is formed at or between the end wall and at least one sidewall (Fig. 67 at 720′, generally and in a vertical sense),
the cable opening (720’, generally, and as shown in Figs. 67 and 68) configured to receive the external cable (not shown, but with connection to the input connection 720’) into the first volume (top/upper side; the cable opening is seen as so configured, particularly at the top of Fig. 68).
Leeman as set forth above does not disclose:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume, and
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
Leeman Fig. 50, ¶ 118 et seq. shows a splice holder at the front/right of the splice tray with integrated cable termination 626
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide splice holding via a splice holder along the lines of Leeman Fig. 50 in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to provide fiber splitting via splicing. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
As such, the combination would then provide:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume,
Leeman also provides disclosure for apertures and/or openings in walls, partitions, bulkheads, and the like in Figs. 67 and 68 at 702’, Fig. 65 at the lateral housing/chassis member (unnumbered) between 712’ and 714’, and in Fig. 34 at pigtail port 584.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an aperture or opening between the upper and lower volumes divided by partition wall/intermediate tray 744 along the lines of such figures in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to communication between the two areas and fiber/cable passage. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
Together, the additional Leeman disclosures would provide:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume, and
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
With respect to claim 2, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
the adapter wall (718’) comprises a plurality of adapters (output connectors 715 per Fig. 60; 718’ Fig. 66) extending into the second volume (bottom/lower side; per Fig. 68).
With respect to claim 3, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
an adapter base wall (Fig. 66, portion of top panel with numbers above adapters at 718’) extends along the width between the sidewalls and partially along the length (per the figures; Fig. 66),
the adapter base wall (number panel) positioned along the length at or proximate to the adapter wall (718’).
With respect to claim 4, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 3, including one wherein
a cable entry passage is formed at the adapter base wall (number panel) (the adapters themselves provide passage for cable entry, particularly for the ends of cables that connect to the adapters),
the cable entry passage extending along the length (which they do),
the cable entry passage configured to allow the external cable into the first volume (top/upper side; the passage is seen as so configured as entry into the interior of the Leeman splitter would allow for entry into either the first or second volume).
With respect to claim 5, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, the main body (742) but not one comprising
a fastener mount location extending along a direction of extension of the external cable through the cable opening.
Leeman, Fig. 50 shows:
a fastener mount location (a cable termination bracket 628) extending along a direction of extension of the external cable (a riser cable 638 or a feeder cable 634) through the cable opening (at either end of the rear of splice tray with integrated cable termination 626).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fastener mount location along the lines of Leeman Fig. 50 in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to provide cable connection and fiber splitting/split apart. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a fastener mount location extending along a direction of extension of the external cable through the cable opening.
With respect to claim 6, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 5, including one wherein
the fastener mount location forms a groove configured to receive the external cable (634/638).
The feeder/riser cable 634/638 is in a channelled groove.
With respect to claim 7, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 5, including one wherein
the fastener mount (628) location is configured to receive a collar extended around the external cable (634/638).
In Fig. 50, zip ties are seen which collar the cable and are received by the cable termination bracket 628.
With respect to claim 8, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 5, including one wherein
the fastener mount location (628) is configured to receive a fastener (zip ties shown in Fig. 50) extended around the external cable (634/638).
With respect to claim 9, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
a tie point (¶ 120, strength member termination device 632) is formed alongside the cable opening (628, generally),
the tie point configured to affix a strength member of the external cable (634/638) to the main body (742).
The strength member termination device 632 is seen as terminating strength members by affixation thereto.
With respect to claim 10, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
the fiber storage area (Fig. 68) comprises a plurality of tabs (shown as part of tray 744) extending at least partially parallel to the partition wall (744).
With respect to claim 11, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
the storage area (744 top) comprises an internal wall (generally to the rear/left of the more forward oval elements) extending along the height (per Fig. 68) from the partition wall (744),
wherein a tab (shown as generally between and to the left of the oval element) extends from the internal wall at least partially parallel (per Fig. 68) to the partition wall (744).
With respect to claim 12, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
the passthrough opening (plural openings are seen at 744 in Fig. 68, particularly the cylindrical structures and the split lobe structures at the right end of 744) is positioned alongside the end wall or the sidewall.
One is generally seen at the left/front of tray 744 having a circular top.
With respect to claim 13, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one comprising:
a removeable cover (base 740) forming a base wall (over the adapter area 718’) and a top wall over the main body (742; per Figs. 66-69).
With respect to claim 14, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 13, but not one wherein
the removeable cover (base 740) comprising a latch configured to selectively attach and release at a latch interface at the sidewall.
Leeman ¶ 96 discloses:
For example, the connection interface 75 may couple to a mounting interface 126 (e.g., latches, snaps, dove tail, etc.) on the tray 120 (see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use latches to selectably and removably connect different splitter elements along the lines of Leeman ¶ 96 in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to provide easy and reliable access and securement. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the removeable cover (base 740) comprising a latch configured to selectively attach and release at a latch interface at the sidewall.
With respect to claim 15, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 13, the removeable cover including one comprising
a face extending along the length and width (Fig. 68 top),
wherein a cover sidewall and a cover end wall extends from the face along the height (the perimeter elements shown at the top of Fig. 68).
With respect to claim 16, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, the sidewalls but not one comprising
a latch attachment at an outside face of the sidewalls.
Leeman ¶ 96 discloses:
For example, the connection interface 75 may couple to a mounting interface 126 (e.g., latches, snaps, dove tail, etc.) on the tray 120 (see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use latches to selectably and removably connect different splitter elements along the lines of Leeman ¶ 96 in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to provide easy and reliable access and securement. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a latch attachment at an outside face of the sidewalls.
With respect to claim 17, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, the partition wall (744) including one comprising
a transition wall (midway between the left back and right front of tray 744) extending along the height (per Fig. 68),
the transition wall positioned along the length between the adapter wall (718’) and the storage area (per Fig. 68, the mid-space wall of tray 744 extends horizontally in both directions and situated behind the adapter area of 718’ generally).
With respect to claim 18, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 1, including one wherein
the main body (742) is a unitary, monolithic component.
Front cover 742 is seen as being in one piece.
With respect to claim 19, Leeman as set forth above discloses an optical fiber cassette (the figures generally, but especially Figs. 62-69, particularly Fig. 68; ¶ 126 et seq., fiber distribution terminal 700′) configured to receive an external cable (seen as so configured per splitter input connector 720′), the cassette (700’) defining a mutually orthogonal length, width, and height, the cassette (700’) comprising:
a main body (front cover 742) comprising
a pair of sidewalls extending along the length and an end wall extending along the width between the pair of sidewalls (per the lower element in Fig. 68),
the sidewalls and the end wall each extending along the height (Fig. 68),
wherein an adapter wall (Fig. 66 at 718’, generally) is positioned between the sidewalls and positioned along the length distal to the end wall (Fig. 66 at 718’, generally, and as shown/indicated in Fig. 68),
wherein a partition wall (intermediate tray 744) extends between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (per Fig. 68),
wherein the partition wall (744) is positioned along the height between a top lip and a bottom lip of the sidewalls,
wherein a first volume (top/upper side) is formed at a first side of the partition wall (744) between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (718’), and
wherein a second volume (bottom/lower side) is formed at a second side of the partition wall (744) between the sidewalls, the end wall, and the adapter wall (718’),
wherein a fiber storage area (Fig. 68, generally between base 740 and front cover 742 and including tray 744) is positioned at the first volume (top/upper side) and the second volume (bottom/lower side), and
wherein an adapter base wall (Fig. 66, portion of top panel with numbers above adapters at 718’) extends along the width between the sidewalls and partially along the length (per the figures; Fig. 66),
the adapter base wall (number panel) positioned along the length at or proximate to the adapter wall (718’), and
wherein a cable entry passage (the adapters themselves provide passage for cable entry, particularly for the ends of cables that connect to the adapters) is formed at the adapter base wall (number panel),
the cable entry passage extending along the length (which they do),
the cable entry passage configured to allow the external cable into the first volume (top/upper side; the passage is seen as so configured as entry into the interior of the Leeman splitter would allow for entry into either the first or second volume).
Leeman as set forth above does not disclose:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume, and
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
Leeman Fig. 50, ¶ 118 et seq. shows a splice holder at the front/right of the splice tray with integrated cable termination 626
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide splice holding via a splice holder along the lines of Leeman Fig. 50 in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to provide fiber splitting via splicing. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
As such, the combination would then provide:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume,
Leeman also provides disclosure for apertures and/or openings in walls, partitions, bulkheads, and the like in Figs. 67 and 68 at 702’, Fig. 65 at the lateral housing/chassis member (unnumbered) between 712’ and 714’, and in Fig. 34 at pigtail port 584.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an aperture or opening between the upper and lower volumes divided by partition wall/intermediate tray 744 along the lines of such figures in a system according to Leeman as set forth above in order to communication between the two areas and fiber/cable passage. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical fiber distribution and storage device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
Together, the additional Leeman disclosures would provide:
wherein a splice holder is positioned at the first volume or the second volume, and
wherein a passthrough opening is formed through the partition wall to allow for fiber egress from the first volume to the second volume.
Claim 19 is seen to claim the identically same subject matter as claim 3, above.
With respect to claim 20, Leeman as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cassette (700’) of claim 19, including one wherein
a cable opening is formed at or between the end wall and at least one sidewall (Fig. 67 at 720′, generally),
the cable opening (720’, generally, and as show in Figs. 67 and 68) configured to receive the external cable (not shown, but with connection to the input connection 720’ with the cable opening 720’ being seen as so configured) into the first volume (top/upper side; the cable opening is seen as so configured, particularly at the top of Fig. 68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully submits that the component illustrated in FIG. 12 of Leeman is equivalent to the component of FIG. 68 cited by the Office as providing a passthrough opening. Leeman first provides these structures for fiber routing and slack storage in, e.g., FIG. 12, and then provides similar structures at the intermediate tray 744 at FIG. 68. There is nothing from Leeman to suggest that these structures of FIG. 68 should include an opening extending through the wall to allow fiber to extend through to alleged first and second volumes. Indeed, Leeman is entirely silent as to any opening at the structures or through the wall. As such, the only motivation for such modification comes from Applicant's specification, which is impermissible for sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner response: Creating and providing apertures/openings in walls, partitions, bulkheads, and the like is well within the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This is shown by disclosures in Leeman as set forth in the rejection of the claims, particularly claim 1.
B. The Office also asserts that Leeman discloses a main body including sidewalls and an end wall at front cover 742 in Fig. 68. Office Action at pg. 6. The Office further asserts that a cable opening is formed at or between the end wall and the sidewall at 720. Office Action at pg. 7. However, Leeman element 720 is part of the asserted partition wall at 744, rather than at the alleged main body at 742. As such, Leeman fails to disclose a cable opening is formed at or between the end wall and at least one sidewall, as required in the independent claims. FIG. 68 of Leeman is reproduced below and annotated for illustrative purposes: [graphic omitted]
Examiner response: Horizontally, no; but vertically, yes. As the cable opening is not outside of or beyond "the end wall and at least one sidewall", it is seen to be within the footprint of such walls and so, between them.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240427103 A1 published December 26, 2024 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
Fig. 3 of US 4898448 A of Cooper shows fibers going past partitions/walls.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (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 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights