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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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.
Claims 6-9 and 17 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.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 each recites the limitation "the rear adapter" in their respective first lines. Claim 5, from which Claims 6, 7, and 9 depend describes that, “the one or more drop-in rear adapters comprise two rear adapters.” It is not clear from the language of Claims 6, 7, and 9 whether the further limitations are intended to apply to a single rear adapter or the two rear adapters.
Claim 8 depends from Claim 7 and fails to remedy the indefiniteness.
For examination purposes, Claims 6-9 shall be considered to refer to any rear adapter.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the two linear guiding rails" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether Claim 17 is intended to depend from Claim 16, as currently written, and create a new limitation referring to the two linear guiding rails or if Claim 17 is intended to depend from Claim 14, which describes the linear guiding rails.
For examination purposes, Claim 17 shall be considered to depend from Claim 16 and the described linear guide rails shall not be considered with reference to Claim 14.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2010/0322580 to Beamon et al. (“US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes a module (22’, 22”, see Figs 10A-15) for use in a patch panel, the module comprising:
one or more fiber adapters (150, 154);
one or more rear adapters (152, 156);
a housing (90) having a first forward end (at 126) and a second rearward end (at 98), the housing comprising:
a planar base (shown in Figs 11, 12) extending between said first end and said second end,
two sidewalls (102A, 102B) extending upwardly from the longitudinal edges of said base and a rear wall (98) extending upwardly from the transversal edge at said second end;
one or more fiber adapter seats located/arranged transversely along said first end of the housing (shown in Figs 14-15); and
one or more rear adapter seats located in the rear wall at said second end of the housing (shown in Figs 14-15); and
a removable housing cover (92).
US1 does not describe the fiber adapters or rear fiber adapters of the module as drop-in adapters and does not describe the fiber adapter seats or rear adapter seats of the module configured to receive the respective adapters in a vertical direction.
US1 further describes a module (see Fig 26) comprising:
a housing (90) having a first forward end (306) and a second rearward end (304), the housing comprising:
a planar base (326) extending between said first end and said second end,
two sidewalls (308, 310) extending upwardly from the longitudinal edges of said base and a rear wall (see Fig 26) extending upwardly from the transversal edge at said second end;
one or more drop-in fiber adapter seats (314) located/arranged transversely along said first end of the housing, each said fiber adapter seat being defined by respective upwardly extending lateral walls (328), wherein the lateral walls of the adapter seats are configured to receive the fiber adapter in a vertical direction (see [0093]); and
one or more drop-in rear adapter seats (312) located in the rear wall at said second end of the housing, each said rear adapter seat being configured to receive a respective rear adapter in a vertical direction (see [0093]), and
a removable housing cover (92).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adapter seat structures of the embodiment of Fig 26 of US1 in the module of Figs 14-15 of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for connectorized cable to be received at the fiber adapter seats of the module of Figs 14-15 (see [0093]).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the one or more fiber adapters comprising three fiber adapters (see Fig 15).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 does not describe the two outermost fiber adapters as each seated at an inward angle of about 5 degrees relative to a transverse axis of the module. However, it is well-known in the art to angle adapters relative to a module. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the two outermost fiber adapters of obvious module in view of US1 at an inward angle of about 5 degrees relative to a transverse axis of the module. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier access and manipulation of individual connectors by the user.
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes the one or more rear adapters comprising two rear adapters (see Figs 14-15).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes the rear adapter as an MPO adapter (see [0058]).
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes each fiber adapter comprising a tab on each lateral/side surface (see Fig 27-28), and the lateral walls of the adapter seats each comprise a vertical slot (330) configured to slidably receive a respective tab of the fiber adapter (see [0093]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes the planar base provided with a cable management system (142A, 142B).
Regarding Claim 12, US1 is silent as to the material of the housing cover. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the housing cover from a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 13, US1 does not describe the housing cover attached to the housing using screws. It is well-known in the art that screws may be used alternative means for attaching housing components instead of a notch-and-protrusion means as described by US1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the housing and cover of US1 such that they are attached using screws. The motivation for doing so would have been to make use of a known technique for improving similar devices in the same way, allowing for a secure connection regardless of material fatigue or degradation due to environmental factors.
Regarding Claim 14, US1 describes the sidewalls of the housing comprise linear guiding rails (28A, 28B) on an external surface configured for sliding engagement with complementary sliding guides on the patch panel ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, US1 does not describe the lateral walls of the rear adapter seats each comprising a tab, and each rear adapter comprising a vertical slot on each lateral/side surface configured to slidably receive a respective tab of the rear adapter. However, such a configuration would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C), swapping the tab of the adapters for the slot of the adapter seats. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the obvious module in view of US1 having the claimed adapter and seat structures.
Regarding Claim 16, US1 describes a cable distribution system (10, see Figs 1-7) comprising:
one or more modules (22’, 22’’) as defined in claim 1 (see above); and
at least one patch panel (20) configured to receive the one or more modules in respective module channels (30).
Regarding Claim 17, US1 describes two linear guiding rails (28A, 28B) on the sidewalls of the housing engage complementary sliding guides (32) on the module channels (see [0046]).
Regarding Claim 18, US1 describes a method for assembling a module comprising an end-to-end connected fiber assembly, comprising:
providing a housing (22’, 22’’) having a first forward end and a second rearward end, where the housing structure is obvious in view of US1 as set forth with respect to Claim 1 above;
providing a fiber assembly (134) comprising a fiber harness plugged into at least one fiber adapter at a first end and at least one rear adapter at a second end (see [0058]);
dropping the fiber assembly into the housing, wherein each said fiber adapter is placed in a respective fiber adapter seat and each said rear adapter is placed in a respective rear adapter seat (see [0058], [0093]); and
installing a cover onto the housing (see [0055], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes at least one fiber patch cord plugged into a respective fiber adapter (see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 20, US1 describes the rear adapter as an MPO adapter connected to an MPO cable (see [0058], [0066], [00669]).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0220204 to Ruiz (“US2”) in view of US Patent 5,804,765 to Siemon et al. (“US3”).
Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes a module (100) for use in a patch panel, the module comprising:
one or more fiber adapters (120);
one or more rear drop-in fiber adapters (135);
a housing (115) having a first forward end (at 120) and a second rearward end (at 117), the housing comprising:
a planar base (shown in Fig 2) extending between said first end and said second end,
two sidewalls extending upwardly from the longitudinal edges of said base and a rear wall extending upwardly from the transversal edge at said second end (shown in Fig 2);
one or more fiber adapter seats located/arranged transversely along said first end of the housing (shown in Fig 2); and
one or more drop-in rear adapter seats (117)located in the rear wall at said second end of the housing, each said rear adapter seat being configured to receive a respective rear adapter in a vertical direction; and
a removable housing cover (105).
US2 does not describe the fiber adapters of the module as drop-in adapters and does not describe the fiber adapter seats of the module configured to receive the respective adapters in a vertical direction.
US3 describes a module (see Figs 1, 5) comprising:
one or more drop-in fiber adapters (42);
a housing (10) having a first forward end (at 36a, 36b) and a second rearward end (at 30), the housing comprising:
a planar base extending between said first end and said second end (shown in Figs 1, 5),
two sidewalls (shown in Figs 1, 5) extending upwardly from the longitudinal edges of said base and a rear wall (shown in Figs 1, 5) extending upwardly from the transversal edge at said second end;
one or more drop-in fiber adapter seats (at 36a, 36b) located/arranged transversely along an end of the housing, each said fiber adapter seat being defined by respective upwardly extending lateral walls (36a, 36b), wherein the lateral walls of the adapter seats are configured to receive the fiber adapter in a vertical direction (see Col 3 Lns 35-63); and
a removable housing cover (15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adapter seat structures US3 in the module of US2. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow easy installation/removal of factory-loaded adapter plates into/out of the module (see US3 at Col 3 Lns 61-63).
Regarding Claim 2, US2 and US3 each describe the one or more fiber adapters comprising three fiber adapters (see US2 at Fig 2 and US3 at Fig 1, 9).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 does not describe the two outermost fiber adapters as each seated at an inward angle of about 5 degrees relative to a transverse axis of the module. However, it is well-known in the art to angle adapters relative to a module. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the two outermost fiber adapters of obvious module in view of US1 at an inward angle of about 5 degrees relative to a transverse axis of the module. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for easier access and manipulation of individual connectors by the user.
Regarding Claim 4, US2 and US3 are silent as to the structure of the fiber adapters. LC adapters, SN adapters, and SC adapters are all well-known the art as standardized fiber adapter structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fiber adapters of the obvious module in view of US2 and US3 as LC adapters, SN adapters, or SC adapters. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for the use of standardized connectors with the module.
Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes the one or more drop-in rear adapters comprising two rear adapters (see Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7, US2 describes the rear adapter is a strain relief adapter (see [0020]).
Regarding Claim 11, US2 describes the planar base is provided with a cable management system (125).
Regarding Claim 12, US2 is silent as to the material of the housing cover. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the housing cover from a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 13, US2 does not describe the housing cover attached to the housing using screws. It is well-known in the art that screws may be used to connect housing components when aligned holes are provided, as shown in Fig 2 of US2. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use screws to attach the housing and cover of the obvious module in view of US2 and US3. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for a secure connection regardless of material fatigue or degradation due to environmental factors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Claim 8 describes the strain relief adapter comprising a cable strain relief clamp and a rubber insert configured to fit within the strain relief clamp.
Claim 9 describes the rear adapter comprising a strain relief clamp and a fan-out kit.
Claims 21 and 22 describe the rear adapter is a strain relief adapter.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Please note that Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various modules including optical fiber adapters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874