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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Sixteen sheets for formal drawings were filed September 8, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al. (EP 3133430 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 16, Tong discloses a fiber management tray (see Figs. 1-4) comprising: a main tray body (200) including a base panel (bottom surface of chassis 200) having a top side and an opposite bottom side, the fiber management tray being elongated along a length of the fiber management tray (200 is elongated since it has a rectangular shape; its length is larger than its width), the base panel having opposite first and second sides extending between opposite first and second ends (right and left sides), the first and second ends being separated by the length of the fiber management tray; fiber guide walls (200 has walls along the perimeter) that project upwardly from the top side of the base panel; a cable anchoring region (211) located at the first end of the base panel; optical splicing locations (250; paragraph 0110) on the top side of the base panel between the first and second sides of the base panel, the optical splicing locations configured for receiving and retaining splice holders; a fiber loop-storage region (interior of chassis 200 retains loops 12, 22) defined by the fiber guide walls on the top side of the base panel, the fiber loop-storage region being elongated along the length of the fiber management tray (interior region as well as fiber loops 12, 22 are also elongated); and a bend radius limiter (400) positioned adjacent the cable anchoring region, the bend radius limiter including a raised support member (401 in Figs. 9A-9C) elevated with respect to the base panel such that the bend radius limiter is offset upwardly from the base panel to define a cable routing pathway (paragraph 0101 discloses “cable jackets 13, 23 are placed in the slot and are pressed below the bottom sheet 401”) beneath the raised support member from the cable anchoring region to the fiber loop-storage region, the bend radius limiter also including an inner guide wall (426) that projects upwardly from the raised support member to define a fiber routing pathway that corresponds with the fiber loop-storage region, the inner guide wall including at least one fiber management tab (421) that projects laterally outwardly from each opposing side of the inner guide wall.
Regarding claim 2, Tong discloses the at least one fiber management tab includes a fiber tab (421 in Fig. 9A) that extends in a first direction over fibers routed along the fiber routing pathway to retain the fiber on the fiber management tray.
Regarding claim 3, Tong discloses the at least one fiber management tab includes three cable management tabs (411 in Fig. 9A) that extend in a second direction over fibers routed along the cable routing pathway.
Regarding claim 5, Tong discloses a gap is defined between the bend radius limiter and the cable anchoring region in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, Tong discloses the splice holders (250) define outer channels that form part of an exterior pathway along which fiber lengths are routed in the fiber loop-storage region in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, Tong discloses fiber optic cables including an outer jacket, the outer jacket of the fiber optic cables being anchored at the cable anchoring region, an inner jacket of the fiber optic cables being routed along the cable routing pathway in Figs. 2 and 5B.
Regarding claim 13, Tong discloses the base panel includes optical component locations (250) on the top side thereof in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 14, Tong discloses the base panel includes optical splicing locations (250) configured for receiving and retaining splice holder modules in Fig. 2.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (EP 3133430 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 4, Tong discloses the bottom side includes a loop storage of cables (13, 23) in Figs. 10A-10B. Tong teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a loop storage of uncut buffer tubes of a feeder cable, the bottom side being adapted to anchor the feeder cable thereto. However, uncut buffer tubes of feeder cables are well-known and commonly used in the art of optical devices and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use uncut buffer tubes of a feeder cable for the purpose of increasing the density of the device. Further, it would be obvious to adapt the bottom side to anchor the feeder cable in order to form a rugged and robust device while reducing the size.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Tong teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the bend radius. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed bend radius in order to minimize damage to the optical fibers, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Tong teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the number of optical fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed the number of optical fibers in order to increase the density of the device, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Tong teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating dematable fiber optic connection locations having fiber optic connectors interconnected by fiber optic adapters. However, dematable fiber optic connectors and fiber optic adapters are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use dematable fiber optic connection locations having fiber optic connectors interconnected by fiber optic adapters for the purpose of enhancing the connection of optical fiber cables and fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights