DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on December 19, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-18, and 20 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.
In claim 1, line 7 recites—the adapter assembly having at least one receptacle for receiving the at least one fiber optic connector—;
In claim 1, lines 18-19 recites—the adapter front end portion defining on a front receptacle configured to mate with the front fiber optic connector—;
In claim 1, lines 19-20 recites—the adapter back end portion defining a back receptacle configured to mate with the back fiber optic connector—;
The language “at least one fiber optic connector” or “at least one receptacle” cannot exists due to the bi-directional nature of an adapter which requires two receptacles, front and back, and two optical connectors to be connected from the front and the back. See duplicated Fig. 3 below.
In claim 1, line 7 recites—the assembly opening—is not clear which assembly applicant is referencing back to—the “fiber optical connection assembly” or the “adapter assembly”.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-4, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gniadek et al. (US 2018/0156988 A1, herein “Gniadek”) in view of Anderson et al. (US 8,923,013 B2, herein “Anderson”).
Claim 1. Gniadek discloses a fiber optic connection assembly configured to mate with at least one fiber optic connector assembly comprising:
an adapter assembly (two duplex narrow pitch connector 500 coupled to both ends at receptacle 402) configured to latch (latching arms 504) with the latch element (openings on both ends for receiving latch arms 504 of duplex connector shown in Fig. 5) to be releasably secured in the assembly opening by
Inserting the adapter assembly forward into the back end portion (back receptacles 402, inserting from the back would require a forward push force) and
Inserting the adapter assembly backward into the front end portion (front receptacles 402, inserting from the front would require a push force pushing toward the back of the adapter assembly),
PNG
media_image2.png
349
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the adapter assembly comprising a bidirectional extraction mechanism (pull tab 514) configured to be selectively actuated for unloading the adapter assembly (releasing latch arms 504 from the latch openings in cage 400) from the assembly opening by (a) extracting the adapter assembly backward from the back end portion (b) extracting the adapter assembly forward from the front end portion;
PNG
media_image3.png
428
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the adapter assembly includes an adapter for making an optical connection between the front fiber optic connector and a back fiber optic connector, the adapter comprising a perimeter wall having a length extending along the longitudinal axis from an adapter front end portion and an adapter back end portion, the adapter front end portion defining a front receptacle configured to mate with the front fiber optic connector and the adapter back end portion defining a back receptacle configured to mate with the back fiber optic connector;
However, Gniadek does not explicitly discloses a cage as recited in claim 1.
Anderson teaches a cage (1010) having a cage front end portion and a cage back end portion spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, the cage defining an assembly opening extending from the cage front end portion through the cage back end portion, the cage comprising a latch element (on slides 1100).
wherein the cage is sized and arranged relative to the adapter assembly (1150) such that when the adapter assembly is releasably secured in the assembly opening the adapter front end portion is adjacent the cage front end portion, the adapter back end portion is adjacent to the cage back end portion, the front fiber optic connector mated with the front receptacle extends forward out of the cage front end portion, the adapter back end portion is adjacent to the cage back end portion, the front fiber optic connector mated with the front receptacle extends forward out of the cage front end portion, and the back fiber optic connector mated with the back receptacle extends backward out of the cage back end portion (via the slide mechanism 1118 and rail 1015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the cage 1010 of Anderson can be modified to reduce in size such that the cage is sized and arranged relative to the adapter assembly, since it’s been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation for employing the cage as taught by Anderson is to allow for bidirectional access to the adapter assembly via the slide and rail mechanism that allows for the adapter assembly to be slid forward and backward for the purpose of add, remove, or replace physical media segment connections (Anderson: Col. 14, line 61 to Col. 15, line 13, Col. 22, line 65 to Col. 23, line 24, Col. 20, lines 23-53 and Col. Col. 28, lines 13-24).
PNG
media_image4.png
437
789
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 2. Gniadek discloses the adapter assembly includes an insert cartridge (assembly shown above the duplex connector in Fig. 7) comprising the bidirectional extraction mechanism (pull tab 514), the adapter being secured to the insert cartridge via latch arms 504 latching into the openings of adapter assembly.
Claim 3. Gniadek discloses the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 2, wherein the insert cartridge comprises a main body (top housing 510 mounted on the front duplex connector and the back duplex connector) and wherein the bidirectional extraction mechanism comprises a front actuator (pointing pins 522 on the front ) movably connected to the main body (510 of front connector) and a back actuator (pointing pins 522 on the back) movably connected to the main body (510 of the back connector) independent of the front actuator.
Claim 4. Gniadek discloses the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 3, wherein each of the front actuator and the back actuator comprises a pull tab (514) protruding longitudinally in relation to the main body (510).
Claim 14. Gniadek discloses the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 2, wherein the adapter is configured to mate with a uniboot connector (Fig. 7 shows the duplex connector is has a uniboot).
Claim 15. Gniadek discloses the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 1, wherein the cage comprises an upper portion, a lower portion, a left portion, and a right portion (see the dimensional walls of adapter in Fig. 4B).
Claim 19. Gniadek discloses a method of installing a fiber optic trunk cable into one or more back receptacles of the adapter assembly (see Gniadek rejection to claim 1 above and at least Figs. 5, 7, 8, and 12).
However, Gniadek does not explicitly teach:
after said plugging, inserting the adapter assembly forward into a back end portion of a cage to load the adapter assembly into an assembly opening of the cage;
wherein said plugging occurs while the adapter assembly is unattached to the cage.
Anderson teaches in Fig. 7, with the lid of the housing removed, the blades can be assembled without obstruction, wherein the receptacles (1150) are opened for plugging. In this assembly step, Anderson teaches it would be possible to load the adapter assembly into the cage after plugging, inserting the adapter assembly forward into a back end portion of a cage to load the adapter assembly into an assembly opening of the cage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the assembly method of Anderson allows for visual identification of the cable trunks and their subdivision being installed to an array of adapters arranged in columns and rows. This visual guidance allows for organized identification of each connection corresponding to each channel. One would be motivated assemble in the manner as recited for installation, organization, and identification ease.
Claim 20. Gniadek discloses a fiber optic connection assembly comprising:
an adapter assembly releasably secured in the assembly opening (adapter 400 and receptacles 402), the adapter assembly having at least one front receptacle (402) and at least one back receptacle (402);
at least one front connector (duplex connector 500) mated with the adapter assembly in the at least one front receptacle (402);
at least one back connector (duplex connector 500) mated to the receptacle in the at least one back receptacle (402), the adapter assembly securing the at least one front connector and the at least one back receptacle such that an optical connection is made between the at least one front connector and the at least one back receptacle;
Gniadek does not teach the cage as recited in claim 20.
Anderson teaches a cage (1010) having a cage front end portion and a cage back end portion spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, the cage defining an assembly opening extending from the cage front end portion through the cage back end portion;
wherein the adapter assembly is selectively releasable from the cage and the cage is sized and arranged relative to the adapter assembly (1150) such that when the adapter assembly is releasably secured in the assembly opening the adapter front end portion is adjacent the cage front end portion, the adapter back end portion is adjacent to the cage back end portion, the front fiber optic connector mated with the front receptacle extends forward out of the cage front end portion, the adapter back end portion is adjacent to the cage back end portion, the front fiber optic connector mated with the front receptacle extends forward out of the cage front end portion, and the back fiber optic connector mated with the back receptacle extends backward out of the cage back end portion (via the slide mechanism 1118 and rail 1015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the cage 1010 of Anderson can be modified to reduce in size such that the cage is sized and arranged relative to the adapter assembly, since it’s been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The modification of Anderson to the invention of Gniadek would allow the adapter assembly to slide forward or slide backward via the slide/rail mechanism such that technicians can selectively remove/connect connectors from the adapter assembly via the pull tab 514 on each duplex connectors. The motivation for employing the cage as taught by Anderson is to allow for bidirectional access to the adapter assembly via the slide and rail mechanism that allows for the adapter assembly to be slid forward and backward for the purpose of add, remove, or replace physical media segment connections (Anderson: Col. 14, line 61 to Col. 15, line 13, Col. 22, line 65 to Col. 23, line 24, Col. 20, lines 23-53 and Col. Col. 28, lines 13-24).
PNG
media_image4.png
437
789
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gniadek in view of Anderson (herein “Gniadek /Anderson”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ninomiya et al. (US 2020/0271866 A1, herein “Ninomiya”).
Gniadek /Anderson teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 4. Gniadek does not explicitly disclose wherein each pull tab is above the adapter.
Ninomiya teaches an adapter assembly wherein each pull tab is above the adapter (pull release tabs 22a, 22b, are on top of the adapter housing 9, Para [0062], Figs. 12 and 13A.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include each pull tab to be above the adapter as taught by Ninomiya. The motivation would have been to make the modules accessible via the pull tab in dense fiber connection assembly such as a cabinet or communication panel.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gniadek / Anderson in view of Ninomiya (herein “Gniadek/ Anderson / Ninomiya”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kramer (US 2007/0025675 A1, herein “Kramer”).
Gniadek / Anderson / Ninomiya teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 5, but Gniadek / Anderson / Ninomiya do not teach one of the pull tabs is above the adapter and the other pull tab is below the adapter.
Kramer teaches in Fig. 7 an adapter assembly wherein one of the pull tabs is above the adapter and another pull tab is below the adapter (adapter module 316 has a push/pull tab 542 on top of it and releasing tab 552 on the bottom of it, Para [0041]-[0042], Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
341
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapter in Gniadek/ Ninomiya invention with the pull tab above the adapter and the pull tab below the adapter as taught by Kramer. The motivation would have been to make the modules easier to stack on top of each other.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gniadek / Anderson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Heinz (EP-0460277-A1, herein “Heinz”).
Regarding claim 7, Gniadek / Anderson teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 3, wherein the cage comprises a front latch arm defining a backward facing latch hook (Tray 20 includes a stop 38 at front end 34 which is shown in Fig. 4 to be shaped like a hook that faces toward the rear end 36),
Gniadek / Anderson fail to explicitly disclose wherein the cage comprises a back latch arm defining a forward facing latch hook.
However Heinz is in the field of bidirectional extraction assemblies and Heinz teaches the cage comprises a back latch arm defining a forward facing latch hook (Figs. 1-2 show that two locking levers 2, 3 of a two way pull out drawer each have opposite facing hook shaped ends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include a back latch arm defining a forward facing latch hook as taught by Heinz. The motivation would have been to more securely prevent the modules from unwanted sliding.
Regarding claim 8, Gniadek / Anderson in view of Heinz (herein “Gniadek / Anderson / Heinz”) teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 7. Beam further discloses the main body comprises a front catch (Gniadek: The front stop 38 prevents the fiber optic module 22 from extending beyond the front end 34 by abutting against an edge portion of the module 22 which appears to be one of the rails 28A, 28B mounted on the side of the main body 90, Figs.5 and 11) and a back catch (Latch 44 mounted on the side rail 28A of the main body 90, figure 1 0A, figure 11 ). Wherein the main body is configured so that when the adapter assembly is secured in the assembly opening, the front catch opposes the backward facing latch hook (The front stop 38 abuts an edge potion of the module 22 to prevent it from sliding out of the front end 34 when the module is installed in tray 20, Para [0047], Fig. 5).
Gniadek / Anderson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the main body is configured so that when the adapter assembly is secured in the assembly opening, the back catch opposes the forward facing latch hook, whereby the main body is retained longitudinally between the front latch arm and the back latch arm.
Heinz teaches the main body is configured so that when the adapter assembly is secured in the assembly opening, the back catch opposes the forward facing latch hook (A drawer is in the locked position in Fig. 1, where it does not extend from its housing because of the engagement with levers 2 and 3 with a stop 8 on the housing, Para [0014]-[0016], Fig. 1), whereby the main body is retained longitudinally between the front latch arm and the back latch arm (Drawer 1 is between the angled ends 2a, 3a of levers 2, 3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include the main body is configured so that when the adapter assembly is secured in the assembly opening, the back catch opposes the forward facing latch hook, whereby the main body is retained longitudinally between the front latch arm and the back latch arm as taught by Heinz. The motivation would have been to more securely prevent the modules from unwanted sliding.
Regarding claim 9, Gniadek /Anderson / Heinz teach the adapter assembly and the cage are configured so that, as the adapter assembly is loaded into the assembly opening by inserting the adapter assembly forward into the back end portion of the cage, the back latch arm rotates to latch with the back catch and the front latch arm does not rotate (Heinz: Fig. 4 shows a variety of possible drawer positions. To move the drawer from the fourth position shown in figure 4 to the first position shown in figure 4, the lever 2 must be rotated about pivot 4, to the second position shown in figure 4 to allow the drawer to be pushed to the right. The lever 2 is then rotated back into its original rotational position with respect to the drawer to that it can latch on to stop 8. Rotation of lever 3 is not required because its hook portion is already to the left of stop 8 and the levers 2,3 are independently rotatable, Para [0016]); wherein the adapter assembly and the cage are configured so that, as the adapter assembly is loaded into the assembly opening by inserting the adapter assembly backward into the front end portion of the cage, the front latch arm rotates to latch with the front catch and the back latch arm does not rotate (Heinz: To move the drawer 1 from the seventh position in figure 4 to the first position in Fig. 4, lever 3 must be rotated about its own pivot 4 to allow the drawer 1 to be pushed to the left. The lever is then rotated back into its original rotational position with respect to the drawer to that it can latch on to stop 8. Rotation of lever 2 is not required because its hook portion is already to the right of stop 8 and the levers 2,3 are independently rotatable, Para [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, Gniadek / Anderson / Heinz teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 8, wherein the front actuator is movable in relation to the main body through a range of motion along the longitudinal axis including a respective inner longitudinal position and a respective outer longitudinal position (A front module tab 40 is connected to the module 22 by its sliding connection with rail 32 so that the main body 90 of module 22 is able to slide with respect to tab 40 from a position where the tab 40 is at the edge of the module to a position where the tab 40 is in the center of the module, Para [0047]).
Gniadek / Anderson also teach wherein the front actuator is movable in relation to the main body (To remove the fiber optic module 22 from the rear end 36 of the fiber optic equipment tray 20, a lever 46 on the back of the module 22 is pushed inward, Para [0048], Fig. 11)
Gniadek /Anderson fail to explicitly disclose wherein the back actuator is movable in relation to the main body through a range of motion along the longitudinal axis including a respective inner longitudinal position and a respective outer longitudinal position.
However Heinz teaches the back actuator is movable in relation to the main body through a range of motion along the longitudinal axis including a respective inner longitudinal position and a respective outer longitudinal position (An angled portion 2a,3a of each lever 2,3 is movable with respect to drawer 1 between an angled position and a straight position and can be pivoted as the drawer 1 slides outward or inward along the longitudinal axis of the housing so that it is movable both with respect to the drawer 1 and along the longitudinal axis of the housing simultaneously, Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include the back actuator is movable in relation to the main body through a range of motion along the longitudinal axis including a respective inner longitudinal position and a respective outer longitudinal position as taught by Heinz. The motivation would have been to allow the back actuator and the front actuator to be used to anchor or move the main body along multiple longitudinal positions.
Regarding claim 11, Gniadek / Anderson / Heinz teach fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 10.
Gniadek / Anderson does not disclose the front actuator comprises a front latch release wedge configured to unlatch the front latch arm from the front catch as the front actuator moves from the respective inner longitudinal position toward the respective outer longitudinal position, and wherein the back actuator comprises a back latch release wedge configured to unlatch the back latch arm from the back catch as the back actuator moves from the respective inner longitudinal position toward the respective outer longitudinal position.
Heinz also do not explicitly teach a front latch release wedge and a back latch release wedge.
However, Heinz does teach the front actuator comprises a front latch release pivot configured to unlatch the front latch arm from the front catch as the front actuator moves from the respective inner longitudinal position toward the respective outer longitudinal position (Fig. 4 shows that to move the drawer 1 from a locked inward position to a left outward position, lever 2 is tilted about pivot point 4 to release the hook shaped end of the lever 2 from stop 8), and wherein the back actuator comprises a back latch release pivot configured to unlatch the back latch arm from the back catch as the back actuator moves from the respective inner longitudinal position toward the respective outer longitudinal position (Fig. 4 also shows that to move the drawer 1 from a locked inward position to an outer position, lever 3 is tilted about a pivot point 4 to release the hook shaped end of the lever 3 from stop 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek to include a wedge, since the equivalence of a wedge and a pivot is recognized for their use in the latching art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would have been to make the actuator easier to produce, since the wedge could be more easily made as a unitary portion of the main body.
Regarding claim 12, Gniadek / Anderson / Heinz teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 10.
Heinz further teaches a front actuator spring loaded for yieldably biasing the front actuator toward the respective inner longitudinal position and a back actuator spring loaded for yieldably biasing the back actuator toward the respective inner longitudinal position (Levers 2, 3 and their respective angled portions 2a, 3a are spring biased toward the horizontal locked position in Fig. 1, which is longitudinally inward with respect to the housing, Para [0014]), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include a front actuator spring loaded for yieldably biasing the front actuator toward the respective inner longitudinal position and a back actuator spring loaded for yieldably biasing the back actuator toward the respective inner longitudinal position as taught by Heinz. The motivation would have been to more securely prevent the modules from unwanted sliding.
Regarding claim 13, Gniadek / Anderson / Heinz teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 11.
Heinz further teaches a front retainer and a back retainer secured to the main body, the font actuator spring being compressed between the front retainer and the front actuator and the back actuator spring being compressed between the back retainer and the back actuator (Each lever 2, 3 has a spring 5 which is in the fully compressed position when the respective lever 2, 3 rests on a respective limit pin 6, which is mounted to drawer 1. Each spring 5 is mounted below the limit pin 6 so that the spring extends the distance between the limit pin 6 and its respective lever 2, 3 both in the compressed and extended position, paragraph [0014], figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include a front retainer and a back retainer secured to the main body, the font actuator spring being compressed between the front retainer and the front actuator and the back actuator spring being compressed between the back retainer and the back actuator as taught by Heinz. The motivation would have been to more securely prevent the modules from unwanted sliding.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gniadek / Anderson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0011383 A1, herein “Lee”).
Regarding claim 16, Gniadek / Anderson teach the fiber optic connection assembly as set forth in claim 15. Gniadek does not disclose the upper portion defines an upper stacking interface and the lower portion defines a complementary lower stacking interface, the upper stacking interface configured to mate with the complementary lower stacking interface of an identical cage to facilitate vertical cage stacking.
Lee teaches a stackable optical adapter wherein the upper portion defines an upper stacking interface and the lower portion defines a complementary lower stacking interface, the upper stacking interface configured to mate with the complementary lower stacking interface of an identical cage to facilitate vertical cage stacking (A stackable optical fiber adapter includes a plurality of shell members 1 having interconnecting parts 13,14 on the tops and bottoms so that they can be vertically stacked on top of each other, Para [0030], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include wherein the upper portion defines an upper stacking interface and the lower portion defines a complementary lower stacking interface, the upper stacking interface configured to mate with the complementary lower stacking interface of an identical cage to facilitate vertical cage stacking as taught by Gniadek. The motivation would have been to optimize the modularization of the adapter wherein the orientation of the adapter is nominal since the two adjacent adapters will always be complementary, mated, and stacked.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee further teaches a plurality of identical cages including the cage of the panel assembly of claim 17 (Lee: Figs 6-7 show four horizontally connected shell members 1 where the two innermost members 1 are identical), the plurality of identical cages stacked side-by-side using the left stacking interfaces and complementary right stacking interfaces (The two identical innermost members 1 have interconnecting parts 13, 14 on the left and right sides so that they can be horizontally joined, Para [0033], Fig. 6), the fiber optic connection assembly further comprising a left panel flange secured to the left stacking interface of a leftmost one of the plurality of identical cages and a right panel flange secured to the right stacking interface of a rightmost one of the plurality of identical cages (On the right side of the rightmost identical member 1, a wing plate 111 that extends outward to the right is connected by means of an outermost shell member 1 which only has connecting parts 13. On the left side of the left most identical member 1, a wing plate 111 that extends outward to the left is connected by means of an outermost shell member 1 which only has connecting parts 14, Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gniadek / Anderson to include a plurality of identical cages including the cage of the panel assembly of claim 17, the plurality of identical cages stacked side-by-side using the left stacking interfaces and complementary right stacking interfaces, the fiber optic connection assembly further comprising a left panel flange secured to the left stacking interface of a leftmost one of the plurality of identical cages and a right panel flange secured to the right stacking interface of a rightmost one of the plurality of identical cages as taught by Lee. The motivation would have been to optimize the number of cables that could be assembled in a cabinet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 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, Thomas A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights