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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Lee-Lanzone combination fails to disclose, teach or suggest "wherein the adjustment member comprises one or more cam surface portions configured to engage an engaging surface of the movable member," as recited in amended independent claim 1” (Remarks: p. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that claim 1 recites “one or more cam surface portions” NOT a cam or a cam mechanism. Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose the adjustment member includes a cam or cam mechanism but rather defines cam surface portions as planar and their disposition/engagement (“cam surface portions 534 are planar” and “may be configured to engage an engaging surface 528 formed on the movable member 520” - p. 13, lines 19-23). Lee’s surfaces of 137 and 139 includes planar surfaces and are configured to engage an engaging surface (left surfaces of 132) of the movable member (130) (figs. 5-6), and therefore meeting the claimed cam surface portions recited in claim 1. If a cam or cam mechanism is claimed, a cam is simply a rotating component (as defined by Google AI “what is a cam mechanism - Google Search: A cam mechanism is a mechanical device that converts rotational motion into reciprocating or oscillating motion. It consists of a rotating component (the cam) with a specially designed profile that pushes against a "follower," creating precise, timed movements.”). Lee discloses “when the tightening screw 139 coupled to the tightening hole 137 of the vertical part 132 of the second body 130 is rotated… a nut portion 139b coupled to the screw portion 139a, and is made by rotating the nut portion 139b coupled to the screw portion 139a. The vertical part 132 of the body 130 moves in a direction in which the first body 110 is in close contact… (Lee’s English translation: p. 4, two paragraphs before last). Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, screw 139, hole 137, and the vertical part 132 together serves as a cam mechanism, and the surfaces of 137 and 139 are considered as cam surfaces. Thus, Lee in view of Lanzone is therefore meeting the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee at al. (KR 102188729 B1) in view of Lanzone et al. (US 11921337 B2).
Re claim 1: Lee at al. discloses a retaining device for retaining cables, the retaining device comprising a body member (110) and a movable member (130), an adjustment member (137, 139, vertical portion 132, and the vertical sides of 110 together serves as an adjustment member), wherein the body member (110) and a movable member (130) are configurable to define a plurality of channels (114) configured to receive cables (11), wherein the channels (114) have a profile configured to restrain a longitudinal movement of the cable (11) received within them, wherein the movable member (130) is selectively movable (left-right) relative to the body member (110) in order to adjust a dimension of the channels (114) (see abstract), wherein the adjustment member comprises one or more cam surface portions (surfaces of 137 and 139 (figs. 5-6)) configured to engage an engaging surface (left surfaces of 132) of the movable member (130), wherein the adjustment member (137, 139, 132) is movable relative to the body member (110) in order to move the movable member (130) relative to the body member (110) (figs. 5-6).
Lee et al. is silent with respect to the cables are optical fiber cables.
Lanzone et al. teaches a retaining device (66, 68) for retaining optical fiber cables (60) (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 48-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the retaining device of Lee et al for retaining optical fiber cables as taught by Lanzone et al. since such modification is merely an obvious expedient for an intended use well within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 2: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 1, wherein the movable member (130) is movable relative to the body member (110) between a first position, at which the dimension of the channels is at a maximum (fig. 5), and a second position at which the dimension of the channels is at a minimum (fig. 6).
Re claim 3: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 1, wherein the body member (110) comprises a plurality of projections (113) extending parallel to and spaced apart from one another, wherein the channels are formed between adjacent pairs of the projections (113) (fig. 5).
Re claim 4: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 1, wherein the movable member (130) comprises a plurality of projections (133) extending parallel to and spaced apart from one another, wherein the channels are formed between adjacent pairs of the projections (133) (fig. 2).
Re claim 5: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 2, wherein: when the movable member (130) is in the second position, there is a greater offset between the projections of the movable member (130) and the projections of the body member (110) in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the channels (114) than when the movable member (130) is in the first position (fig. 6).
Re claim 6: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 1, wherein the body member (110) comprises a space (115) extending in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the channels (114), and wherein the movable member (130) is received within the space (115) (figs. 2-3).
Re claim 8: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 7, wherein the one or more cam surface portions comprise a first surface portion (surface of 139b) and a second surface portion (left side of vertical 110), wherein the retaining device is configured such that when the engaging surface (left surfaces of 132) of the movable member (130) engages the first surface portion (surface of 139b), the movable member (130) is in the first position (fig. 5), and when the complementary surface (right surface of 132) of the movable member (130) engages the second surface portion (left side of 110), the movable member (130) is in the second position (fig. 6).
Re claim 10: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 8, but is silent with respect to the first and second surface portions are arranged on opposing sides of the adjustment member.
However, such arrangement would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application because arranging the first and second surface portions on one side or opposing sides of the adjustment member is simply a rearrangement of parts, and therefore an obvious expedient.
Re claim 10: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 8, wherein the adjustment member (139) is pivotally attached in the body member (110), wherein the cam surface portions of the adjustment member extend about a pivot axis (along 137) of the adjustment member (139) such that a position on the cam surface portions at which the engagement surface of the movable member (130) engages the cam surface portions varies based on a pivot angle (rotations) of the adjustment member (139) relative to the body member (110), and wherein a distance between the cam surface portions and a pivot axis of the adjustment member is greater between the first and second surface portions than at the first and second surface portions.
Re claim 11: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 7,wherein the adjustment member comprises a shoulder, the shoulder comprising an abutment surface configured to abut the movable member in order to restrict movement of the adjustment member relative to the movable member in a direction perpendicular to the abutment surface (the left surface of the vertical side of 110 serves as abutment surface to abut the movable member 130 to restrict the movement of 139 as it reaches the far at the first and second surface portions farthest right).
Re claim 12: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 7, wherein the adjustment member comprises one or more curved surface portions (surface of the screw 139b and/or 137) arranged between or adjacent to the one or more cam surface portions (right surface of 139b), wherein the curved surface portions are to support rotation of the adjustment member relative to the body member (110).
Re claim 13: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the retaining device of claim 7, wherein the retaining device comprises a resilient element (an elastic means such as a spring) arranged to bias the movable member towards the adjustment member.
Re claims 14 and 17: Lee et al. discloses a retaining device (100) comprises a plurality of channels (114), wherein the channels are aligned with respective apertures of the gasket and the channels are configured to receive one of the plurality of cables (11), wherein the retaining device comprises a body member (110) and a movable member (130), wherein the body member and movable member are configurable to define the plurality of channels (114), wherein the channels have a profile configured to restrain a longitudinal movement of the cable received within them, wherein the movable member (130) is selectively movable (left/right) relative to the body member in order to adjust a dimension of the channels (114) (see abstract).
Lee et al. is silent with respect to the retaining device is located on the interior or exterior side of the gasket a sealing unit for a cabinet containing optical components, the sealing unit comprising: a gasket defining a plurality of apertures configured to provide a seal around a plurality of optical fiber cables, wherein the gasket has an interior side intended to face the interior of the cabinet and an exterior side intended to face an exterior of the cabinet.
Lanzone et al. teaches a retaining device (66, 68) for retaining optical fiber cables (60) (fig. 3; col. 3, lines 48-67) located on the interior or exterior side of the gasket (12) a sealing unit for a cabinet (10) containing optical components, the sealing unit comprising: a gasket (12) defining a plurality of apertures (58) configured to provide a seal around a plurality of optical fiber cables, wherein the gasket has an interior side intended to face the interior of the cabinet and an exterior side intended to face an exterior of the cabinet (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the retaining device of Lee et al in a sealing unit for a cabinet containing optical components as taught by Lanzone et al. since such modification is merely an obvious expedient for an intended use well within the ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, such modification would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application for providing a watertightness to protect the fiber optic cables from damages and secure the fiber optic cables in their intended positions for proper operations.
Re claim 15: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the sealing unit of claim 14, wherein the retaining device is arranged immediately adjacent to gasket (Lanzone et al.: fig. 3; col. 3, lines 48-67).
Re claims 16 and 19: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the cabinet or mast containing optical components, the cabinet or mast comprising the retaining device according to claim 1, wherein the cabinet or mast comprises a base section and a lid section that are movable relative to each other between an open position and a closed position (fig. 6).
Re claim 18: Lee et al./Lanzone et al. discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: installing the optical fibers within the channels such that the profiles of the channels engage the optical fibers cables to retain the optical fiber cables in the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber cables (Lee et al.: fig. 4; Lanzone et al.: fig. 3; col. 3, lines 48-67).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights